Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Star Ratings

Is there a set way to display this as i've noticed that through out wikipedia there are 2/3 different types of stars and layouts such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razorlight_%28album%29 which has two types, and there are some pages that have one or the othe, is someone willing to set a stardard on this? --Ashl 16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Remastering

Isn't there a specific colour scheme for this? I mean, it's not an original studio album? Might have missed it. if so, excuses. Darksteel 13:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Sometimes the info is included in the infobox, or within the text body, and/or as bonus tracks to the album. Fantailfan 19:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tapes

There isn't a color for tapes, how about adding one for them? i've been annoyed severely cause i can't add tapes at the moment. Darksteel 13:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Colors are assigned to album times types (i.e. live, studio, compilation), not to media types ("tapes", cds, dvds, etc.). Many albums have been released on more than one format. ~Gertlex 00:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Darksteel 13:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Elapsed times for sub-tracks

See for example Hemispheres (Rush album) - should we have a different way of displaying these from the way we display track lengths, and if so what (currently they are in parentheses)? Rich Farmbrough 22:28 4 August 2006 (GMT).

Resources

Does anyone have access to Guinness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums (any edition will do I guess, the later the better)? Or The Complete Book Of The British Charts: Singles and Albums? Punctured Bicycle 01:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

i've got 'British Hit Singles', 11th edition, if that's any help. W guice 20:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox colours

Sorry to bring this up yet again...but is it really necessary to have different colours for different types of albums? I mean, the colours are totally irrelevant to any casual reader, to anyone who is not involved in this specific wikiproject. Recently someone had a creative idea to make the colour match the actual album cover. I reverted it because I am familiar with this project, but that did seem better than the completely random orange or whatever. I am reminded of the old Battles WikiProject, where we had a complex colour scheme depending on continent and whether or not the battle took place on land, at sea, or in the air. It's fun to come up with schemes like that but it is totally useless for everyone else. So basically, in short, all infoboxes should have one neutral colour, like grey. Adam Bishop 15:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Aw c'mon, we've got to have some fun! But seriously, although the colours are totally irrelevant to any casual reader, or to anyone who is not involved in this specific wikiproject, they are relevant to people who have figured out the code. On the other hand, having them all the same color might reduce the number of editors who are used to seeing many different colors, and think it's okay to use whatever color they think looks good. -Freekee 16:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Freekee; I appreciate the colourings because I can tell at a glance what sort of release an album/single/whatever is. However, I wouldn't mind reverting to a one-colour system as long as the same information could be found in the infobox fields. --Jacj 17:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

But Freekee, Wikipedia articles are not a code to be broken. Why should random readers have to figure it out? Adam Bishop 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't figure out why that question is relevant. I mean, you told us why you don't find the colors to be as advantageous as many people think they are, but you didn't really explain what the disadvantage to having them is. -Freekee 04:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The disadvantage is that the colours chosen are all ugly. Who seriously uses salmon and turquoise? That's why I reverted both attempts (one just today, another some time ago) to change the Vas (band) colours to the ones I'd added originally. The only advantage is available only to those of you who pay attention to the project. Only you realise it means something different. This time, after reverting two of the articles to less hideous colouring, I visited the project page out of curiosity and saw what the point was. I've put the colours back to your standard but I'm still having trouble seeing the point. Why not have an infobox field which gives the same information and let a minor aesthetic choice be made for the articles, or chose something more neutral. - BalthCat 18:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The disadvantage is that they don't mean anything to anyone, aside from the people who created them. Adam Bishop 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just calling them "ugly" alone seems subjective, but on a practical level I feel that the stronger colours often tend to clash badly with album cover designs, whereas muted colours are somewhat more in the background, allowing the album (or single) cover image to become a focal point.Ricadus 05:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The main problem I see with hard-coding colors (either in the template itself or the article) is that they might not (and often do not) look good with all of the stylesheets. The default monobook stylesheet, being mostly white, is pretty forgiving about what colors look good, but the other stylesheets are not. Personally, given the choice between the color being in the article or in the template, I'd prefer the template, for ease of editing and for consistency. Also, if it is in the template there's a possibility of the color being easily moved to a stylesheet (each type of ablum could have a class, and if the user wanted different colors or uniform colors they could control that in their own stylesheets). It'd be great if certain articles could link to an additional stylesheet (like an "Albums Project Stylesheet" for all album articles), but I imagine the software would need to be modified to support this. —TheMuuj ^Talk 05:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, if the colors are changed, I think Wikipedia:Colours provides a good starting place for deciding which colors to use. —TheMuuj ^Talk 19:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming we keep the colors in existence, I think there should be a sixth color added for albums which have not been released yet...--NPswimdude500 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - there's already a template for that. Fantailfan 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep the colors, its a fast and efficient way of instantly recognizing an albums type. Yes, the information can be read in the box too, but for those of us not colorblind, colors = speed. Now can someone explain why all the colors I installed on my Roy Harper album pages have turned pale blue ? 84.58.18.49

It's light steel blue. See discussion below. We were bold. – Fantailfan 13:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 19:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.0 Assessments

Hi. I was wondering if you are aware of the bot-compiled Wikipedia 1.0 assessments at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index and if you wish to take part in this process?: WikiProject Songs are now involved and - speaking as an editor who works mostly in the field of music - this Project's absence is particularly notable. If you'd like any help getting {{Album}} updated to handle this system and the assessment categories put in place drop me a line at my talk page or head on over to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. See also: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. Cheers. --kingboyk 17:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should join in. Secretlondon 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to establish basic criteria for Stub, Start and B-class articles (for hunters and gatherers like me)? Fantailfan 11:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think if we create a list of what "features" are commonly present (and often missing) in most articles, we can use that to gauge an articles "quality"... For example, Infobox, track listing, and an initial summary are found in 95+% of articles, but at the same time, those articles are what we call stubs. It's features beyond that that makes the latter quality ranks, to me. Sales rankings, track by track analysis, miscellanea, separate credit sections, strict adherence to WP:Albums format, and so on that are the additional stuff. Anyone want to take a stab at grouping those? I've gotta pack for college, so not me. o_O ~Gertlex 14:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

How about we classify every article that has an infobox and a complete track listing (including track lengths and songwriting credits) and a credits/personnel section as Start, and everything missing any or all of those three a stub? Anything beyond that (articles with track-by-track analysis, etc.) would then be B-Class or beyond, depending on quality as described at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I could agree with that. Fantailfan 15:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I find that idea logical as well... But it does seem significant enough that it should be more widely discussed. Particularly with the criteria for stub vs. Start, that would be something to add to WP:Albums page itself. Classifying as Start would mean removing stub tags too, right? ~Gertlex 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would consider one of my own contributions (Kojak Variety, which I don't even own) to be a good Start level but the key piece is discussion of the album and track-by-track analysis, though the latter should only be necessary for Important albums. The problem is, how do you write an article about an album that is neither POV nor OR? I've been thinking about this a lot as I am trying to expand my contribution level from Hunter-Gatherer and Librarian to Scribe. (these are temperament classes I have made up on my own.) Essentialy, I want to write an article, but beyond barebones description and more Weasly words than can be boarded at Gryffindor, I do not know what to do. Fantailfan 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with the assessment that that article is a good Starter. But at the same time, Kojak Variety's a longer album than many, and in the case of a 5 track album (such as Five Live), it has the advantage of looking more complete with the same sets of information. Undoubtedly, some would love to argue Five Live as a stub AND Kojak Variety as a Start. ~Gertlex 23:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

By the definition I proposed above, yes, because Five Live lacks songwriting credits and the personnel section, while Kojak Variety has them... --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Unreleased albums

Please note that there is a considerable amount of crud in the above category and Category:Bootleg albums. I'll nominate a couple for deletion and tag others with various cleanup tags, but if other editors would care to examine these categories and see if anything can be improved or should be deleted it would be most welcome. (I hope you won't take exception to The Black Room (album) though, as I believe it's very well referenced for an article on an unreleased album :)). --kingboyk 12:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The KLF discography

The KLF discography is up as a featured list candidate, and an issue of some debate is whether it should include cover scans or not. I personally look to Kylie Minogue discography and The Beatles discography as two of the best discographies we have, and feel that using images this way is legally and morally fair use. The article would be so bare without them. I'm well aware that there is an opposing view too, which is that using images this way is overkill and not fair use at all. I'd be grateful then if interested editors would chip in at the FLC. Ultimately, if removing the images is the only way to get the article promoted I'll do it, but I think the article will lose by it. Your 2c to the FLC please (whether you agree or disagree with me). --kingboyk 12:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone home?

I've seen more life in a morgue! :) --kingboyk 12:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

May I know what you mean by this? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps that's a Briticism: I mean, would somebody care to answer any of my above threads, there doesn't seem to be much traffic around here for such a large WikiProject. --kingboyk 12:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's mid summer if nothing else. People are on holiday and students are away. I think we should join in with the Wikipedia 1.0 thing. Where has this been announced - I think people generally do their own thing and didn't notice - I only noticed because articles on my watch list were being tagged. Secretlondon 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I was only joking, no offence meant :) The links I posted above are the best places to start. I've actually already set up your categories for you (see Category:Album articles by quality and Category:Album articles by importance) and have changed {{Album}} to (for now) put all Albums into the Unassessed categories. Further to this, {{WPBeatles}} shares our assessments of Beatles albums with you (ditto {{WPKLF}}) so you actually already have a few Albums assessed - see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Album articles by quality/1.

The next step would be to place the assessment code into {{Album}} which is very easy to do and which I'm willing to do for you, set up an "Assessment department", and get cracking. It would be great to have you aboard because - as far as I'm concerned anyway - this is a mighty important WikiProject :) --kingboyk 21:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

We're going to have to draft our own assessment scales as well, right? –Unint 23:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be easiest to use the standard scales, but renaming them (and then mapping those renamed scales to the "standard" ones would be quite acceptable I think. --kingboyk 21:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

NEW! Categorizing retitled reissues

I had a little poser with a rare case, and had to used what seems to be a good solution. In case it's not already well-known, I wanted to document and share it with the others -- as well as to get feedback if there's a problem, or a better solution.

• The compilation The Essential Lynyrd Skynyrd (1998, MCA) has been reissued identically but with a new title and new record label, as Gold (Lynyrd Skynyrd album) (2006, Geffen).
• So I made the new title be a #REDIRECT to the original, identical issue, put there a second infobox, and updated the lead -- so far, so good.

But a problem arised for categorizing the new release:

• As I understand it, we usually don't categorize each reissue -- but here we have a new title and new record label: I reckon people browsing Category:Geffen Records albums, or Category:Double albums, etc., would want to be able to find "Gold (Lynyrd Skynyrd album)" too.
• And obviously, adding "Category:2006 albums", etc., to "The Essential Lynyrd Skynyrd" page wouldn't achieve that. Using a sortkey "Gold" is to no avail here, since it will still just list "The Essential Lynyrd Skynyrd" under the letter G, no good.
• I thought of having the "Gold" page be a one-liner article just linking to the real one, just to have a placeholder for the categories, but that was a navigationally ugly kludge.

So, I thought of trying adding the categories right into the #REDIRECT page itself. (Redirect pages used to require stuffing everything on a single line, but as was pointed out later by kingboyk, it's not even required any more.) So the redirect page was eventually edited to this:

#REDIRECT [[The Essential Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
{{R from alternate name}}
[[Category:2006 albums]]
[[Category:Greatest hits albums]]
[[Category:Lynyrd Skynyrd albums]]
[[Category:Double albums]]
[[Category:Geffen Records albums]]

And you know what? It works ;-) The category for 2006 albums correctly lists "Gold (Lynyrd Skynyrd album)" at G, and clicking it in the category's list still activates the redirect to the actual article. At the article, I removed the duplicate categories and put instead, under the other categories, a bigass warning for this uncommon trick:

<!--
  THE RETITLED REISSUE IS CATEGORIZED SEPARATELY ON ITS REDIRECT PAGE
  IN ORDER TO BE DISPLAYED AS "Gold (Lynyrd Skynyrd album)"
  IN THE CATEGORIES' ALPHABETICAL LISTS
 -->

So, with a bit of the old luck, no one should try to add them again to the main article either. Was there a better solution for that? -- 62.147.112.164 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Post later amended with the {{R from alternate name}} and multi-line for documentation purpose -- 62.147.112.177 09:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Great idea — and this is the way to do it, looks like. Wikipedia talk:Redirect has endorsed categorizing redirects. –Unint 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I make use of categories within redirects all the time to achieve just this effect. It's a wonderful tip. And here's a tip from me: categories within redirects don't all have to be on the first line! See e.g. Words of Love (The Beatles song) (in edit mode). --kingboyk 23:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Unint:

• Thanks for the pointer, and I didn't realize there was this talk page too (I had been to the nigh-empty Help_talk:Redirect and had thought the official action was at meta:Help_talk:Redirect). Since they don't document categories inside redirects either, I'll drop them a proposal...

kingboyk:

• That's great, I'm going to use it (and then I'll update the example I gave above, to be complete).
• I'm just a bit concerned about such "undocumented" features. Has it been confirmed by a developer that it was an official feature, intended to stay? Because if that was just a temporary glitch in the current version of MediaWiki, the next software update could wipe out all our redirects' categories.
• Another tip for your Words of Love (The Beatles song) redirect: apparently, there's now the {{R from song}} template to be used (instead of just Category:Redirects from songs). It's part of a series at Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages.

-- 62.147.112.177 09:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't tell you mate, but I assume it's a feature rather than a bug/oversight. The Mediawiki developers are pretty good and I'm confident they're aware that categorising redirects can be useful. --kingboyk 09:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's also what I assume, but just to be on the safe side, I have asked the question of multi-line redirects at WP:VPT, so we'll see about that. At any rate, it's about time to have it confirmed by the devs and officially documented at Wikipedia:Redirect (where I also dropped a section proposal documenting categories inside redirects...)

-- 62.147.112.177 10:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Short story, from developer Tim Starling:

• Categories in redirects are officially OK
• Multi-line redirects are officially OK
• BUT templates in redirects, such as the "R templates", are not OK for performance reasons, and may be broken in the future.

Full story, with IRC logs and Bugzilla confirmation:

Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Content_of_redirects:_templates.2C_categories.2C_multiple_lines

-- 62.147.38.54 19:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for that. I feel vindicated, because I use all of the features mentioned except for the R templates (I just type the category name in, e.g. Category:Redirects from songs). --kingboyk 19:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessments

I've added assessment code to {{Album}}, as described at Template_talk:Album#Wikipedia_1.0_Assessments. I've also created the assessment categories and an Assessment Department (Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment).

I'll now add some instructions and go tag some FA class albums so you all can see it in action.

Mathbot does a daily run through the Albums by quality and importance categories and creates these spiffy pages: Index · Statistics · Log. --kingboyk 21:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, continuing above discussion here.

By "drafting our own assessment scales" I meant, say, expanding on the standard ones to include album-specific details, which would make the necessarily subjective process easier all around. I'm particularly worried about the importance scale: you did say it's not that important, but people are using it anyway — and "rating albums" is something that people will instinctively do (often to much heated debate, if the past half-century is any indicator).

Anyway, I started by putting album in the "top" category. That much I'm sure about. –Unint 22:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with regards to your own assessment scales. It might be worth having a look at how we've done this at the Beatles project or asking at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index where the WikiProject representatives and technical boffins hang out. I'm a bit knackered after doing this kind of work all week TBH!

With regards to importance: It will help Wikipedia 1.0 if the most important (Top/High) articles are identified, and also I suppose if there are high quality (GA, A, FA) articles of Low importance it would help them to know this too. I'm a little worried that with a Project of this size there will be bickering over importance ratings, and fans of certain artists wanting to inflate importance. So, I've put that code in but don't promote that feature - let's see what happens?? Again, Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index is a great venue for discussing these things: WPMilhist can tell you why they ditched importance altogether, WPBio can tell you why they're only assessing core articles for quality, and WPKLF (me) can say that for a small Project importance was a piece of cake :) It's also a good place to get an understanding of what this system is all about and why. Perhaps you'd like to continue this thread over there?

Anyway... I've tagged the FA and GA articles. Albums by The Beatles, Beatles solo and The KLF are already assessed, thanks to {{WPBeatles}} and {{WPKLF}}. I'll be watching the logs (Index · Statistics · Log) tommorow with great interest! :) --kingboyk 22:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, keep it dark for now. Suits me fine. As for the Editorial Team... I think I'll wait until we have a solid core of people working on this before heading over. (Anyone reading and interested, speak up.)

And thank you, tremendously. You've really consistently gone above and beyond the call of duty here. –Unint 03:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A simple question

• Why is there categories for people that have only done a few albums? It seems a bit pointless to me. I think there should be some sort of limit for categories (when it comes to albums at list). I understand things need to be in categories, but that doesn't mean there should be a category for each and every artist's albums. Categories with 10 or less entries should be gone in my opinion. RobJ1981 20:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Even artists with only one album get an albums category. It helps with navigation and organisation. --kingboyk 20:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on that? If someone only has two albums, what sort of organization do they need? -Freekee 00:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, some sort of limit for categories is needed.Dr. Who 01:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we running out of category space? Jkelly 01:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

eheh, :), I guess not, (imho) it is undoubtedly true that cathegories help with navigation and organisation, but also please note that a cathegory which has just one entry could lead the reader to confusion.Dr. Who 01:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be a little bit weird to have Category:Albums by artist who released 10 or more albums instead of just Category:Albums by artist which is pretty straightforward. Jogers (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize it is an established rule that all artists with at least one album article must have their albums categorized, but I had hoped that someone could convince it's a good idea. -Freekee 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I gather it's sort of like if you have a street with only one building on it, you still give that building an address. You don't address letters to "The building on 192nd Street"--that would be kind of awkward. Nareek 04:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think it needs to be changed. I'm sure there is more than enough people that feel the same way I do. A category for a few albums (just for the sake of categorizing), seems just pointless. RobJ1981 02:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think there should be a limit. An albums category for every artist with an album article creates consistency between all of Wikipedia's music articles. It is the basis of the album categorization system and keeps several parent categories organized, easy to navigate, and comprehensive (particularly Category:Albums by artist, Category:Albums by artist nationality, and Category:Albums by genre). --musicpvm 18:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• I think the policy is fine. Categories are the only form of metadata supported in MediaWiki, so having a category for every artist makes browsing artists much easier. If some of the features of Semantic MediaWiki [1] ever make it over to Wikipedia, then I'd prefer other means, as categories tend to become clunky. (the features of Semantic MediaWiki would be fantastic for the albums project, by the way) —TheMuuj ^Talk 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summary

I have been making a fair number of edits based on the Album guidelines and was wondering if we have (or should have) an edit summary like many of the projects do. I did a quick search of the talk archives and didn't find anything. You can see from my contributions that I've been using: "Standardizing album info – You can help!". Thoughts?--Fisherjs 18:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea. Making some kind of to-do list would also be useful. Jogers (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Automatic album template

Recently I've been adding lots of {{album}} templates to talk pages of albums either as I go about doing other things (and I notice the talk page link is red) or sometimes I seek out album pages here or here. Anyhow, I'm wondering if it's possible with a bot to automatically put the album template on the talk page if the article has an album infobox? I know next to nothing about how to actually do this, but maybe someone else does? We could also go in the reverse direction and say that if there is an album template then the article should have an infobox. A dump of the ones that don't have infoboxes could go on our to-do list (that's yet to be created).--Fisherjs 17:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm planning to do it (kingbotk (talk · contribs)) - tagging album stubs as stub-class album articles, and then tagging all other albums with a default {{album}}. I have some article lists ready, I'm just waiting to clear a few jobs first (tagging songs and living people). Please, nobody do a bot run without consulting with me first, as you'll need to be aware of some changes I've made to the template, and it would be best to co-ordinate things. --kingboyk 18:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OK! Kingbotk (talk · contribs) has started tagging album stubs. It took me quite a while to get a working regular expression which would zap empty {{album}} tags and those with only empty parameters, whilst ignoring talk pages with any valid parameters, but I'm reasonably sure I have it right now (for those who are interested, I'm ignoring talk pages containing the following: WPBeatles|\{\{KLF|\{\{(template:|)album(s|)[^\}]*=[a-zA-Z]+[^\}]*\}\}). The automatically-assessed articles are stored in Category:Automatically assessed album articles; hopefully the numbers in that category will go down quickly as passers-by assess the articles and remove the auto=yes parameter!

When I'm done I'll look at tagging all other album articles, although I might do some more work for WikiProject Biography first. Hope that helps. --kingboyk 21:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Stubs have been done. If you see any album stubs with auto=yes on the talk page, please assess the article and remove that parameter. I'll do the other album articles next. --kingboyk 10:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, going quite good... had a few false positives due to some bad categorisation but nothing too major. Get assessing folks! --kingboyk 07:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pitchfork Media Reviews

Hey everyone. Let it be known that Pitchforkmedia has revamped the way they store their reviews on their website, leaving many of the links here on Wikipedia pointing toward absolutely nothing. So, when you come across an album page and it has a link to a pitchfork review, can you just check the link to make sure it's still viable? I'll be doing the same, and thanks in advance for your help. --King Bee 16:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Review ratings

Just though I'd note here, that I've created new SVG stars, to represent the ratings given to albums, by pro reviews. I also created a template to embed them easily in the right size. {{Rating-5}} is the template. You can read the instructions there on how to use it. It could maybe do with some work, but I think it will be useful to have (the SVGs are too big, and the template code makes the much more efficient to scale down easily). The only real advantage over the PNGs currently used is that these are SVGs. Take a look at Paris (Paris Hilton album) for an example of it in use. Feedback would be appreciated. Oh and if you're wondering why I didn't use the currently vacant {{Rating}}, there's stuff on the talk page relating to a deleted one, so I though it best not to use it. I know there's already one kind of similar at {{stars}} but I just though a layout like this might be a bit simpler to use (the template sytax I mean) - ^Рэд_хот 22:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I will use your SVG stars in the future, if for no other reason than to use SVG. I went ahead and tweaked your template to include alt text, since the default alt text (the filename, I believe) isn't as useful, and there is rarely a text description of the star ratings to accompany the image. —TheMuuj ^Talk 00:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's a good idea. I just spent so much time fixing bugs that I accidentally included (at one point it caused them to skip a line - it's very hard to know until you see them in a infobox template) so didn't really think about the rest of how it looks. I just thought that the code for the other, {{stars}}, was just unneccessasarily long and a bit complicated if it was to include halves, when most album reviews are out of 5 and only include halves (which are a bit hard to do with it). If others like it, (which I have yet to find out) maybe it should be on the main project page. Anything not using an out of 5 system could be converted and rounded, as although up to 10 is available with {{stars}} it would be very long to have 10 and would probably break a line. - ^Рэд_хот 09:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There's been a lot of discussion about stars (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Stars). The issue is controversial and there is no consensus whether to use them or not. I oppose recommending usage of stars on the project page for this reason. I also strongly oppose so-called "rounding" (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_7#Stars) Jogers (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the stars and I don't see any convincing arguments against them in that talk page (but let's save that debate for another day). If by rounding he means chopping off a half, that's a definite no no. I don't have any problem with converting a 5/10 review to 2.5/5 out of 5 though. --kingboyk 10:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the rounding wouldn't come up often anyway . I just saw one that said something like 7.9/10 which is what I meant - 7.9 divided by 2 = 3.45 so you could just put in 3.5/5 stars and then specify exactly in brackets after the stars (although if you're going to get that specific in decimals I don't see why they don't just use a percentage) e.g. write: (7.9/10) . I just checked though, using ten stars, with a reasonably sized name and a link on {{stars}} will break lines (and it looks a bit strange having ten). The main reason I created it is cause nearly all the major reviewers only use halves or are out of ten, meaning that for the majority of cases, the new one will suffice (and I certainly think it is simpler to use, in particular for halves). I created it without discussion because its usually the quicker way to establish whether or not it will be supported because if its there, then it's obvious exactly what you mean by the proposal.

But I think the format for stars should be on the project page. Nearly every album infobox with a review uses stars, so it would help if it was standardised (even if it was to end up using {{stars}} instead of {{Rating-5}}). And since I'm not exactly sure how you interpreted "rounding" I mean if its awkward and would be almost impossible to convey in a star (as I already mentioned 7.9/10 would be very difficult). I didn't mean changing 3.5 to 4 (I did upload stars that half halves in them) - ^Рэд_хот 13:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just meant that stars shouldn't be used at all for other than 5-poins scales. Jogers (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What? Do you mean use them only if its out of 5 in total? Cause I'm not sure if that's what you mean, but that's what it sounds like. - ^Рэд_хот 10:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what I mean. It's not only my opinion [2]. Using stars for other than 5-point scales is either unnecessary (when you add a plain rating anyway like this: (7.9/10)) or inaccurate (when you just convert and round). Jogers (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but if some of them have stars, but then others don't in the same infobox, then it would look funny wouldn't it? But do you have a problem with saying (9/10) ? - ^Рэд_хот 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's one of the reasons why I'd prefer not to use the stars at all. Representing all ratings as plain text is easiest and most uniform. I don't see a point of saying (9/10) instead of just (9/10). Jogers (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think it would look funny, really. It would just show that that particular media outlet uses stars as a rating system. If, for whatever reason, people feel the need to have all reviews in a standard format then we can just go 100% text. Unless I'm misunderstanding the argument, it's nonsensical to represent a percentage mark, for example, with a little 5-star image just for the sake of uniformity. Iae 22:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Scaling a rating is pretty much misquoting the reviewer. A-, 90/100, 9/10, 4.5/5 all boil down to the same core meaning mathematically, but the different ratings carry slightly different meanings and connotations. Changing 9/10 to 4.5/5 is tampering with the author's intended meaning. Analagously, "The album is awesome" and "The album is wonderful" essentially say the same exact thing, but we obviously have no right to alter the author's original word choice. Punctured Bicycle 22:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess that does make sense (about the converting, when the end result won't be exact) but I still don't really see the problem with halving ?/10. I don't really see what harm it does if the end result is exactly the same fraction, just with a different denominator. I also strongly dissagree that halving the numerator and denominator alters the authors intended meaning. Practically invariably, what a rating is given out of (?/5, ?/10 etc.) is decided by the publication, not the author of the review. Oh and since we're on this general topic, what would people think about creating a green + and red - SVG to denote when a publication rated positively or negatively? Or something along those lines - I know it's been discussed before, but I want to see what's the current opinion. - ^Рэд_хот 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was about to suggest the +/- images! I might get going on creating such an image. What should be put however if the reviewer sort of havs a mixed image? My ideas would be a green + for possitive and a red minus for negative and a yellow for both if it's mixed. Andrzejbanas 21:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

oops. on fiddling with my version of photoshop i realized I can't make svg's. But I still think this idea shoudl be taken into consideration. just having the word (possitive) or (negative) in there looks kind of bleah. Andrzejbanas 21:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean to change e.g. 9/10 to but leave 9.1/10 as text? Jogers (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

producer credits (hip hop)

• been working on a few hip-hop album articles recently and i was wondering if there's already a consensus on how to do producer credits as to who produced which track, which comes up a lot. i've been going:

1. "Blood" – 4:26
   • Chorus: C-Rayz Walz
   • First Verse: El-P
   • Second Verse: Mr. Lif
   • Producer: El-P

a la the way we do verses. other people put "Produced by xxx". just wondering if there was a style guideline so we can make them all standardised. word W guice 17:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Track listings and times

With many CD re-releases the track listings and times vary from the original vinyl - not only that but differnt CDs have different extra tracks (take Space_Ritual I know of three CD versions plus the original double vinyl - how are these treated? --C Hawke 20:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen articles with multiple track listings, each specifying it's differences from the other listings... It seems like a proper and simple enough way to manage that. Whether anything should be added to WP:Albums page, probably, but I'll wait for a concensus and more opinions. ~Gertlex 01:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

whatever we do we have to ensure that the original track listing from the first release is the one which is shown on the main listing, subsequent tracks added on re-issue can be listed, after the initial list, but as these often vary on different issues, maybe a "On subsequent issues some or all of these tracks have been added" or something similar - the only exceptions are when different countries original releases contain different tracks - Dunno how to deal with this --C Hawke 08:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Album template revision status.

For several months now, there has been an effort underway to overhaul the template used for template entries in Wikipedia. ReyBrujo has developed a template which is signficantly more manageable than the pre-existing template. The template is about ready for prime time; however, feedback is sought from all interested parties, especially those who participated in earlier discussions.

To find out more about the proposed replacement templates, see User:ReyBrujo/Sandbox, and User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox.

Those who want background information on this subject may start here. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The proposed changes are widely supported [3] so I see no reason why not try them out. Jogers (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the info, Jogers. So, what do you think, ReyBrujo? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 17:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not active enough during week days, preferring to do small edits instead. As a first measure, I would suggest moving the templates out of my user namespace to the Template one, renaming them accordingly. If necessary, I would suggest an administrator with oversight powers to delete the history items that have nothing to do with the template itself (that is because I forgot to start a new Sandbox). There are two ways of doing the exchange: two disruptive and one non disruptive but slower. The non-disruptive way would be moving them as new templates ({{album infobox 2}}, in example), and then begin moving the album articles from the existing infobox manually (as in, no bot required, but AWB or similar welcomed), choosing random articles to see if the template is working correctly in them, and warning in the talk page of the article not to go back to the other template as it is our planning to move all the infoboxes to the new one. And after a week with no serious problems, requesting a bot to do all these changes automatically, adding a note in the talk page to report errors here. Otherwise, the other two ways are similar: the first one is putting the latest version of the template in the current infobox, see if there are complains, and if so, revert to the old infobox until the problems are fixed. The advantage of this method is that it is easy, and since the template isn't subst'ed, automatic. The bad thing is that we lose the history of the template development. The other is similar: moving the old infobox to another name, move the new infobox in its place, and work the found errors on the fly. The good thing is that we keep the history of the template development, the bad thing is that we can't move the old template back in its place (without bothering some admin), and if we need to slap the latest "old" template in the new one to keep compatibility if serious bugs were found, we will be back to square one. -- ReyBrujo 18:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two points I would like clarification on: 1) You mentioned a loss of history using the non-disruptive approach (NDA); if the pages are moved, how will the history be lost? 2) Could you itemize the actions required to make this transition? I am rather confused by the process required for this effort, and will probably be unable to relay the instructions/steps to an admin.

FWIW, I vote for the NDA. Making the transition as seamless as possible will hopefully keep resistance to the new template at bay... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 00:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the NDA way does not lose the template history. Only one of the disruptive approach loses the history. And for the other question, see the next section. By the way, what is {{Album infobox 3}}? -- ReyBrujo 02:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the NDA issue. The steps outlined below seem rather clear to me; why do you think admin intervention is needed for this effort? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if we were one of the disruptived method where we needed to replace the full template with the new one, and an administrator with the m:oversight touch if we are to remove the non necessary items from the history of the new template. I have around an hour and half, in case you want me to be responsible for messing everything up while moving the templates :-) Otherwise, anyone is welcomed to follow the proposed steps. -- ReyBrujo 03:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized that oversight cannot be applied to this case, so you will have to keep those edits there. -- ReyBrujo 03:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just so that I am clear on this matter, the NDA can be implemented w/o "adult supervision?" If you are available to help with the move, that would be great. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Steps to implement the new template

1. Move User:ReyBrujo/Sandbox to {{Infobox Album 2}}

   Edits before June 25, 2006 are not necessary and can be deleted.

2. Move User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox to Template:Infobox Album color.
3. Move User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox2 to Template:Infobox Album link.
4. Move User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox3 to Template:Extra album cover 2.
5. Move User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox4 to Template:Extra chronology 2.
6. Create Category:Articles about albums with infoboxes using non-standard type parameter value (or whatever the name should be).
7. Fix wikilinks between the four templates.

Up to this moment, all the templates should be working again. We then just need to begin replacing {{Infobox Album}} with {{Infobox Album 2}} in random articles to see if we have forgotten something. As I said, the modifications should be transparent for most articles. -- ReyBrujo 02:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The template should be backward compatible so why not just copy the code to {{Album infobox}} and see if anybody complains? The link to User:ReyBrujo/Sandbox could be included in the edit summary so anybody interested in the template development history could go to this page and check it out. Jogers (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, we should also modify Template:Extra album cover and Template:Extra chronology, to take the changes to accept the Type as argument. Any way of implementing this is fine with me. -- ReyBrujo 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have found a problem. {{Extra chronology}} is protected because it is used in both album and single infoboxes. Theorically, it keeps backwards compatibility, so it should not be a problem with the single infobox. I will replace the {{Infobox Album}} with the proposed one to see how it fares for a couple of minutes, after adding a warning in the talk page. -- ReyBrujo 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I only applied the template in the sandbox to a handful of articles, I would like to know if there is an easy way to find out which ones were affected. Any suggestions? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 23:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, I finished steps 2 and 3. I could not continue because my internet connection went down and had it restored just now. There is no simple way of knowing which articles will be affected, so I will be adding a notice at the talk page of the Album Infobox stating we are changing the template and that any error should be reported either in the talk page of the template or here, to centralize discussion, quickly fix any problem, and measure the overall impact of the modification. Since I am off to sleep, I will be doing the big change on Sunday, in maybe 12 hours (that would be 18 UTC I believe) if nobody dares to do it before ;-) -- ReyBrujo 05:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The next pair of steps have been implemented. How does Category:Article templates with unorthodox parameters sound for what follows? That way, the template can be used by other projects/portals. Also, please clarify what the last step is about. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 18:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was bold and decided to copy the template in the old one, with the Category:Non-standard album infoboxes category. As for the other templates, for now we will keep the other ones (the main problem is that one of the templates is protected because it is used by the Single infobox as well). -- ReyBrujo 18:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't created the category (although the albums are already there, 4600 or so), just in case we change the category name. I don't like the idea of "unorthodox" parameters, because we would be mixing problems with the album templates with, in example, problems with singles, comic characters, etc. -- ReyBrujo 18:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the template is working. I am checking some random album articles, and it seems to be working fine. Now, the colors haven't been updated because the template gives more priority to the background color set manually than to the type. The next step is to decide whether Studio album and [[Studio album]] can be considered valid types, or we should force type to be without wikilink. If they both are valid, a change can be made at {{Infobox Album color}} to accept the wikified version too (which currently does not), and by removing the background parameter (or giving more priority to the type parameter), the new colors would be implemented. The main problem is that some users may find it odd that they are giving [[EP]] as type, and they are getting [[Extended Play]] as result (this is just an example). -- ReyBrujo 18:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of flexibility in the template, provided the system avoids incurring a performance hit for such leniency... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm just getting gainsboro for | Type = Album. Am I doing it right? Fantailfan 18:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That is because type must be Studio album. We can also modify the color and link templates so that [[Album]] and [[Studio album]] link to Studio album, so that the chosen color is selected. But that is what I was saying, someone who puts type as [[Album]] will get [[Studio album]] as album type, which may confuse the editor. -- ReyBrujo 19:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I know it's too late to jump in here... but if I have to put in Studio album I get "Indigo Girls Studio album chronology" when my chronologies include EPs, Live albums, and Compilations... Fantailfan 18:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

...and XTC Compilation album chronology for The Compact XTC... Fantailfan 19:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the chronology should always have (aka, hardcoding) "Album" (or "Single" if used in the Single infobox too), nevertheless the type. After all, most if not all chronologies include everything. -- ReyBrujo 19:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job, BTW. Didn't mean (only) to whinge. Fantailfan 19:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, feedback is encouraged. The infobox is now using {{Extra chronology 2}}, thus the caption of the chronology should be fixed. Per CBD's previous change in the template, we may have to include the extra chronology template into the infobox. -- ReyBrujo 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Beauteous... going through my Watchlist now with AWB... ignoring U2 & R.E.M. for now... Fantailfan 19:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that I have to delete entire Background = to get new colo(u)rs to work. Fantailfan 19:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is because, currently, the template gives more priority to the background color than to the type. These are the two steps we need to decide now:

1. Should {{Infobox Album color}} and {{Infobox Album link}} accept variations of the proposed types? In other words, right now it accepts Studio album. Should it accept [[Studio album]] and [[Album]] as well? If not, we will have to manually (or with a bot) modify the 29000 or so articles, changing from their current type to a valid one.
2. The template, right now, gives more priority to the background parameter than to the type. That is because of the previous point. If we change the priority, since most types have wikilinks, most of the infoboxes will appear as gainsboro.

There doesn't seem to be too many problems. I will be updating the temlate instructions later once we determine it is working right. -- ReyBrujo 19:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Unluckily, the deletion was by mistake (I wanted to delete Temp/Sandbox, but instead nominated—and ultimately got deleted— Sandbox. Since we have not moved the template from my userspace, Not much was lost. It is good to have my sandbox back, though :) -- ReyBrujo 03:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is lightsteelblue the current color for studio albums? Shouldn't it be orange until we adopt the changes to all the articles and then discuss new colors? Jogers (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just changed it back to orange. I don't mind any other color and personally I find orange rather ugly but I thought that this way we are less likely to confuse anybody. Jogers (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I liked the lightsteelblue as well. We should hold the discussion about the types and colors, and whether to use several types (wikilinks and plains) for each type, so that we can finish with the changes (setting the new colors, and creating the category for non standard types). -- ReyBrujo 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I kind of like the lightsteelblue better. The orange sort of jumped out it you in a sort of gaudy way. Cool colours worked better then the neon-orange thing we have going. Andrzejbanas 01:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

lightsteelblue vs. orange

Voice your support for which you prefer below:

1. lightsteelblue. --Folajimi 21:51, 4 September 2006
2. ReyBrujo I like lightsteelblue as well. I am not sure, but somehow this part is not getting a lot of attention, and all this section will surely be archived soon.
3. Lightsteelblue, surely. I suggest we change the color after most of the infoboxes are updated, though. Jogers (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
4. LightSteelBlue, but I really don't think we should be choosing the colours one at a time. It could cause clashes later on, or at least the early commitments would restrict the later choices. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 10:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
5. LightSteelBlue, suckas Andrzejbanas 13:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
6. lightsteelblue. Fantailfan 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
7. AnythingButOrange LightSteelBlue - I agree with MightMoose22, colours should be picked as a scheme, and the colours should come from Wikipedia:Colours to start. - BalthCat 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
8. i'm all about the orange. Otherwise, the way this is heading everything will be a washed-out indistinguishable pastel shade in no time -- W guice 11:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
9. While I like lightsteelblue, I agree that we should really consider Wikipedia:Colours. —TheMuuj ^Talk 01:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This poll has been open for ten days, and the consensus supports the proposed switch from orange to lightsteelblue. The change has been implemented, and I would like to thank all of those who participated in this event. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 15:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a bot that's able to make the changes? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There should be no need. We can make {{Infobox Album}} to skip the Background parameter, thus forcing the new colors to every article. -- ReyBrujo 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's useful. I hope I haven't been using the wrong one... --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

comments

• To MightyMoose22: Anyone with issues with the others can put them up for votes as well. My problem was simply related to the one used for studio albums. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 11:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What I meant is that we should vote on them all together, rather than one at a time. For example, put up a dozen nominations and ask people to choose the half-dozen they like and think work best together, then assign them to album types after they're chosen. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 11:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe we should go with the less-shocking approach. As no issues have been raised with the other colors, it is much better to change one color (although it is the most common/bright of them all) than changing all of them. -- ReyBrujo 13:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, then I agree. But I seem to remember some people jumping in with complaints about other colours last time the issue was raised. Particularly salmon and turquoise, I seem to remember. But if they're not brought up again this time, then I guess it doesn't matter. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 13:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember, this isn't do or die; if anyone has any concerns, they can always bring them up at a later date. Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 13:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did mention, above, that I found the main colours pretty hideous. I came here because some one kept changing the colours of albums whose articles I created. I found the blatant orange ugly in comparison to the fairly unobtrusive grey I had originally chosen. I reverted it, only to have it happen again a few months later. The Project template was added to the talk page about the same time and I came here and saw that the colour had meaning. However, I tend to agree with the posters above (unless it has been archived), that the colours are ultimately unknown to people outside the project. This is why I take issue with pretty much all the other colours. They're very sharp and in your face, and frankly I find salmon, teal, and orange to be hideous. I think that Wikipedia:Colours is the way to go because this colour scheme should be a "background feature" (not foreground) in the layout of the album template. Those who know the meaning of the colours (who I assume are few...), will know, those who don't, won't get a slap in the face from the garishness of it all. I mean contrast the standard blue/grey layout of Wikipedia to salmon? It just does not go. So my argument is twofold:

1. I'm against orange, teal, and salmon. LightSteelBlue is a start, but there's two and a half to go (the purple is too strong too...)
2. The colours chosen should be unobtrusive, pale or mild colours. More like a movie's background score rather than an anthem.

- BalthCat 20:58, 7 September 2006.

As has been mentioned earlier, now is the time to nominate replacements for undesired hues... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 01:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reply to W. guice:

After reviewing web colors, I beg to differ with your assertion. It is indeed possible to select a spectrum that avoids being abrasive, loud, or otherwise undesirable. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Y'see, i don't really consider it that loud, abrasive or undesirable. i find it easily referrable and distinct. Though i see a majority seem to dislike it, so it's mildly immaterial - W guice 01:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What I mean to say is that I seriously doubt that replacing the orange will result in "...a washed-out indistinguishable pastel shade in no time..." --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 02:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeh, agreed, i don't think the orange alone will do that. Although i find the lightsteelblue-esque colours rather bland and the ones at Wikipedia:Colours are forgettable even as you're looking at them, let alone afterwards. - W guice 02:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of the first trio of hues in the orange category? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 12:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the colours have to be unforgettable. These colours are of benefit to readers familiar with this project, and only those members. There is no element in the template explaining to readers (not editors) what the meaning is, so aesthetic appeal is of more importance than memorability. Those who are in the know will make an effort to know, whereas readers will have no clue. Besides, pale blue and pale green are as memorable as blue and green, it's simply the intensity of the colour which is different. The more important thing is to keep the colours differentiated by colour category. This was my problem in suggesting replacements for all the colours (I spent some time last night), finding appealing colours which were not overly intense and yet were not close to each other in similarity (lightsteelblue and paleblue for example). What do people think of:

EPs	salmon	===>	EPs	navajowhite
Original studio albums	orange	===>	Original studio albums	lightsteelblue
Live albums and live EPs	darkturquoise	===>	Live albums and live EPs	paleturquoise
Cover and tribute albums	plum	===>	Cover and tribute albums	thistle
Greatest hits, box sets and other compilations	darkseagreen	==>	Greatest hits, box sets and other compilations	mediumaquamarine
Soundtracks and television theme songs	gainsboro	==	Soundtracks and television theme songs	gainsboro

- unsigned comment by BalthCat on 08:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

samples

Studio album: Robbie Robertson (album)

Greatest hits: The Very Best of Elvis Costello and The Attractions 1977-86

EP: Never Say Never (EP)

Cover album: Pin Ups

Live album: Blow Your Face Out

No soundtracks since they stay gainsboro. —Fantailfan 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• i was kind of meaning "memorable" as an aesthetic criterion rather than a logistical one, if you see what i mean. i don't know, i suppose i can't really express it better than that i think the present scheme is grand, and doesn't need watering down with mimsy light shades. i think the 'salmon' colour's gorgeous, for instance (albeit not that much like an actual salmon), whereas navajowhite, like Shania Twain, does not impress me much. i don't really buy the "garish" or "too intense" or "(allegedly) 'tasteful' = better" arguments whatsoever. However, as i've said, i recognise i'm very much agin the wind on this one, so if it's ok with all i'd like to withdraw from the discussion at this point. obviously i'll keep an eye out for what gets decided and implement that as normal. - W guice 19:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Railway Stories audiobooks

Hi. The article on The Railway Stories has been noted as being in scope for this project, and a request for an infobox has also been applied.

Q1 Does this project apply to audiobooks, or just music albums?

Q2 Is it necessary for each album to have a separate page or infobox?

Where I'm coming from is that The Railway Stories page describes ALL the audio(book) recordings of the original Railway Series books by Rev W Awdry. So far, this amounts to a series of fifteen 7" singles (the first releases), and a related (?) series of thirteen (?) 12" albums (which were also later released on audio cassette), plus a single new CD recording. That's an awful lot of very small pages (contrary to WikiProject:Thomas aims, which is attempting to reduce the number of small pages used), or an awful lot of album infoboxes on the same page. Apart from the CD release, the content is purely spoken-word.

Having looked at your project page, I can't see that adding The Railway Stories would be appropriate, however I am prepared to be convinced! --EdJogg 13:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The information is really fun, so it should be somewhere. I'm not sure if it fits this purview, and I'd imagine the standard would be that any interesting audiobook information (which is essentially what this is, an early audiobook) would be to include it in the article about the book. Since this is a series, I'd think the proper merge point, if that was the route you took, would be The Railway Series, although there seems to be more than enough information here to clean it up and keep it as a regular article. In this specific case, as they aren't really albums as much as releases of stories from the series, I'm not sure you'd excise them from here. Then again, if the individual stories themselves have articles, maybe the information from the original 7"s can go there. Not an easy one, haha. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarification, there is no suggestion that the content of The Railway Stories is going to be merged elsewhere - it is appropriate as an article in its own right. Indeed, as part of WP:THOMAS it was moved to the main The Railway Series page for a while, but then extracted again because this was more logical, and there was so much information still to add (most of the page content has been added since then). There is no expectation that the original books will receive individual pages either (there are 40 of them!), so the singles cannot be covered elsewhere. -- EdJogg 14:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I actually started that stub, and it was me who added the {{album}} template - but Ed and WPThomas have done all the work :) If I'm not mistaken, what's he really asking is "should it be in the scope of this WikiProject", which ties in with the next thread about comedy albums. Well, in my opinion yes - there's no other WikiProject covering spoken word albums and they are albums after all. Opinions are like... well everyone has them let's put it that way! So, if yours differs speak up :) --kingboyk 06:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comedy?

The template was just added to the talk page for the George Carlin album An Evening with Wally Londo Featuring Bill Slaszo, and I notice that the wording contains the phrase "a useful musical resource on recordings from a variety of genres" (emphasis mine). I wonder if it might be a good idea to reword that, or come up with an altered version for non-musical albums, such as stand-up comedy and other spoken word projects. - Ugliness Man 14:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As above we need some consensus on whether these albums are within scope, but I'm firmly of the opinion that "WikiProject Albums" is just that - any and all albums. I support a wording change. --kingboyk 07:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the word "musical" from the template. See Template talk:Album#Proposed rewording. --kingboyk 12:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Noting source for track lengths

I often find when standardizing album articles that the album length doesn't match the sum of the individual track lengths (I do believe, logically, that they should match). I don't own most of the albums I edit, but All Music Guide is almost always cited as a review and AMG usually lists the track lengths too. When I find non-matching track and total lengths, I usually take the times from AMG instead and update any incongruities. A problem with this, is of course that AMG is not always right, but I have no way of knowing that for each individual album. As a result of this, I've taken to leaving comments stating the source of the track lengths for other editors to read, generally in this format:

== Track listing == <!-- Times match those from actual CD --> or "Times match those from AMG"

Is this reasonable? I couldn't find (didn't look super hard) any guideline on what degree comments should be left in pages. I think this is useful in letting other editors know why times suddenly changed (though I've yet to have a complaint or to notice a reversion of my updated times). Comments? ~Gertlex 01:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is tough. I recently corrected a total album time from what had been given at AMG to what was on the back of the CD I was holding in my hand. I didn't source that. I suspect a lot of these total times come from manual addition of track times. Jkelly 01:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I will use AMG, or the album notes (which are invariably off by ±10 sec.) or the values that come up when I pop the CD in my computer/the values from my "Music Collector" database. I think that the computer will get it wrong as well (usually an error of +2 sec.) so yes, it is tough. Fantailfan 01:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked earlier today, and as far as consistency goes on putting the CD into a computer, I did get the same set of times with both Winamp and Windows Media Player... I did indeed forget to mention that often the wrong total length is due to using what AMG lists as the total length; when AMG does list total length (not that often), it seems it's almost always wrong. Concerning manual addition of track times, I use a self-written program that so far has worked perfectly every time to do the math... I could share it if there's an interest in that sort of thing (I'm sure better made software exists out there for that purpose, though :) ) ~Gertlex 02:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I think it would be a good idea to source your track times, otherwise people are going to be correcting each other's edits ad infinitum. I don't think it's worth a ref tag, and the edit summary isn't a good place for it, so an html comment is probably a good idea. And mention whether you took them from the CD itself, or from its booklet. (Freekee)

Ahh, a good distinction! I too had thought a reference tag to be excessive as well. (never mind that I've yet to memorize the exact syntax for using references anyways)

• Times from "Reviewer source here".
• Times from album booklet.
• Times from album, as read by computer.

Any other distinctions that would be meaningful?~Gertlex 03:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say to differentiate between CD and LP, and not use "album." -Freekee 16:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that you can also find durations at Discogs, and if that fails you can take a bet with Freedb. (The later is NON-authoritative, anyone can inject wrong or vandalized information into it. Or worse, people posting the track listing of their ripped/customized/burned CDs under the original release name, and you'll never know it.)

On a related matter, and for reasons explicited at length in the next section below, I think it should also be prescribed that:

• The total length in the infobox should be based on the addition of the lengths documented in our track lists
• That "silence before hidden track" and similar tricks should be discounted and/or explicited in the infobox total.

(Continued in next section)

-- 62.147.112.177 11:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To base the infobox length on an addition and how

(Spin-off of the previous section)

It is quite common for the total of track lengths to differ, slightly or largely, from the album's total, because of at least two things:

• Actual track lengths aren't an exact number of seconds - what you see is rounded (and the rounding can differ from one device/software to another). Let's say you have 9 tracks, and each is actually 05:00:33 long. Your track listing will display each of them as "05:00", but the album's total length will be 45:03 instead of 45:00, and rightly so.

However, about this point I'd say: all our duration data is always going to be slightly off anyway, so I think it would be simpler and more verifiable to officially require our infoboxes' album length to be based on the addition of the track lengths (rather than a CD player's reported total), and indeed to document the source for the track listing. This means that the album total we would put in the infobox will often vary from what you see in your CD player, but only a little (worse case scenario with 10 tracks and a rounding-down algo would make the error be 10 seconds off max). And since the track lengths can vary a bit too, as well as the various editions/reissues, there usually wasn't a "real album length" in the first place.

Special cases breaking the rule: when the album's total length is somehow a significant part of the album. For instance, I remember some albums intended to be exactly 66:06 or such values, for pseudo-occult reasons (666, number of the Beast, yadda yadda yadda), and we have no reason to hide or remove such details from the reader, however trivial they may seem. There's also the case of the quite famous album 76:14 where each track is titled after its (rounded) duration, and the album too was titled after its total duration (which happened to be different from the total of each tracks length, because of the rounding).

• And as you all know, many CDs use a wide range of stupids tricks tampering with the length of ACTUAL music, such as long minutes of silence before a "hidden track", bonus track hidden in the pregap ("track 0"), etc.

Encyclopedically, I find more relevant that our track listings document when a CD track is actually "5min of music, 10mins of silence, 5min of bonus" as sub-track listings. And I find more encyclopedical to add up only the *music* parts, not the long-silence parts. In this very common case, the total duration as reported by AMG or a CD player will NEVER be the real, encyclopedical value we will get from adding up only the actual songs. This is I think a second good reason for prescribing to derive the album's length from an addition of what is listed as non-silence in the article's track listing.

Now, because of various special cases, the best way about "silent tracks" may be to have the infobox document both values, such as "Length: 72:00 (67:00 + silence)" or "Length: 67:00 (72:00 with silence)". I can't find back all the special cases I've seen about such issues, but I remember those:

The album Orblivion is currently documented as 72:00 (the infobox doesn't tell there's actually 5 minutes of silence). We could just go ahead and say "67:00", but the last track is ironically titled "72" because the padding of silence makes the album's 67mins of music extend to 72mins of reported length. So, if we list this album as "72:00", we don't provide a fully accurate and encyclopedical value, because I think the reader expects to be told the total of actual music. But if we list this album as "67:00", in such special case we miss a secondary but amusing detail about the title of the last track. So, mentionning both could be a good solution, at least for special cases.

The album LP5 has different amount of silence between its two main editions. The infobox currently reports "76:16 (64:11 + silence)".

The album EP7 has a hidden track in the pregap and its infobox says "60:09 (66:53 with hidden track)" because no CD player will report the pregap, and most won't access it anyway.

(Note that even the fact that this hidden track is 404 seconds long is intended as a joke on Error 404 Not Found. My point being that sometimes the track duration should NOT be pulled blindly from AMG or such, so any prescription of format should be a rule of thumb, that such special cases are allowed to break -- with the inclusion of HTML comments to warn why not to tamper with a given value...)

So as I said, I think any solution or prescription should be able to handle, gracefully and encyclopedically, those general and particular issues as well. It's a tough world.

-- 62.147.112.177 11:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the total album length should include the silence. This includes the two seconds of padding between the songs. The time is on there, whether the artist intended it to be, or whether it's just an industry standard. But the important question is what the point of having the total time is? I think it's to show what the total running time of the record is - from when you hit the play button to when the record stops. -Freekee 16:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally that two seconds of silence is included in the track lengths I think... Every MP3 I've ripped from a CD has that silence at the end. I'm more on the side that of providing the total playing time of music (obviously including the already present couple seconds of silence). You'll get the fewest questions from newcomers if you match the total album length with the individual tracks (and how would you go about measuring each album length from start to finish? Own the album and play while running a timer? Unrealistic). ~Gertlex 00:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How would I measure the total time? Pop the CD in and see what the player says. This wouldn't work with LPs, of course, and I wouldn't even try timing them. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freekee (talk • contribs) .

Every MP3 I've ripped adds two seconds. Let's do some testing...

"Johnny B. Goode," Chuck Berry. His Best, Volume 1, track 14. 1997, MCA/Chess/UMG, Universal City, CA.

as read by Music Collector - 2:42

as read by RealPlayer - 2:42

as ripped by RealPlayer (192K VBR MP3) - 2:42

as read by iTunes - 2:42

allmusic.com - 2:42

musicbraniz.org - 2:42

what Windows Media Player and Creative Zen Xtra thinks the song length is - 2:28

Conclusion? Don't trust what an MP3 player (software or hardware) says about VBR-ripped tracks.

Fantailfan 11:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

By testing, do you mean ripping and then observing, or inserting the CD and playing from the CD? (though in All Music's case, simply reading their listed time). The point of my previous comment was simply an observation of silence already existing on everything I've ripped (and not, as you quoted, 2 seconds specifically). Do we have any definite idea for a solution? ~Gertlex 14:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Inserting the CD. Fantailfan 15:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't all this original research? I mean, if you have the album, you have the times that appear there. If the album states a full length time, even if approximate, then use it. If it does not, add the individual song's length and get the album length. This is still original research, but at least everyone can verify it easily by checking the album cover and adding the values up, instead of having to rip the songs, listening to them, or having to add or remove the silence. -- ReyBrujo 14:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you do if no track times are listed on the CD? Fantailfan 15:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The search for a link to a reliable site where they are stating the length of the album, if only in approximation (in example, a link to Allmusic where they say the full album is a little over 70 minutes). Then add ~70:00 as time, with a reference to the link. -- ReyBrujo 16:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• You'll forgive me if i'd rather expend a small amount of effort writing the times out manually from a CD player than i would trust Allmusic as far as i could throw them. --W guice 17:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with putting more accurate information. However, information must be verifiable. If there is a link, everyone can verify it. If you put the times that appear in the CD cover, a good number can verify it (by searching for the album cover, or by just inspecting the cover of the album they have and adding up the values). If now we begin discussiong whether to add or not the silence, if the hidden track should be considered as part of the album or bonus track, etc, we are now being just too accurate. If people does want that kind of information, I guess it would be possible to add all the different measured times in the infobox, like ~70:00 ^{[allmusic.com]}, 68:54 (song length), 66:30 (album length without silence), 62:55 (without bonus track, available only in limited editions) Although I believe it is just too much. -- ReyBrujo 17:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not original reasearch to insert the CD and read the time on your player. That's still published info, which can be verified by others. Is it possible to add too much info? Well... yes, in the sense that we do more work than is necessary to satisfy most readers. Personally, I think if we list track times and a total running time (and source them), that's good enough. Though I have my preferences, I wouldn't change an article to a different source or style. -Freekee 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Based on the remarks so far, there seems to be little in the way of consensus. Until a procedure is hammered out, I suggest that the solution put forth by W guice be adopted. Speaking of which... ReyBrujo, is it possible to have the template automatically sum up the track times which are typed in manually? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to do that, you'd need a way of differentiating the track times from the rest of the text, which is near impossible. And with song names like "10:15 Saturday Night" and "5:15" it's even more difficult. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 04:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What could be interesting is creating a special template or automatic procedure so that it creates a skeleton for album articles, including the infobox, the general layout (summary, track listing, categories, stub, etc). -- ReyBrujo 04:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ReyBrujo, it appears we are on the same wavelength! :) --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Master Series

Okay, odd thing to bring up out of the blue, but just hours ago I noticed the Master Series compilation series and started to do some preliminary research on it. Right now it's just a mess of information I've gathered from all over the place (and a list of artists that you'd never expect to see in the same place). This is an open call for knowledgeable people (if anyone could be said to be knowledgeable about a budget series of CDs released in Europe) to look things over, fill in any glaring omissions, factcheck, etc. –Unint 05:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Joining?

After doing some work on Kirlian Selections (I left the POV template there) I made my way here, and was wondering, can I join? Are there any conditions I need to meet? For that matter, is there a members page that I missed? ^_^;; --Schlagwerk 04:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no members page or conditions you need to meet. You are welcome to help to create, expand, categorize and format album-related articles, as well as participating in discussions on this page. Jogers (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't there a members list? In my experience getting people to sign up, sending them a newsletter occasionally etc etc gives a sense of community and really helps the project. That's certainly been the case at WP:BEATLES. --kingboyk 08:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not create one? Jogers (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Could do, but don't want to rock the boat too much :) Is there any reason why the Project doesn't have these things? --kingboyk 10:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any specific reason. It probably never came up. Jogers (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This list could get quite long over time. How about creating a subpage like Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Participants? Jogers (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done that and transcluded it. If it gets too big the transclusion can be changed to a link. --kingboyk 11:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. Jogers (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox: Album covers

It would be really nice if the album covers within the infobox defaulted to a width of ([width of album infobox] minus [some very small number]) instead of 200, so as to create a perfectly symmetrical and very thin border between the cover itself and the infobox. Try it -- it looks fantastic! Why have those big vertical strips on either side?

Covers with an original image width below the new default should of course be displayed actual size -- but those are few and far between. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ecksemmess (talk • contribs) .

New categories

I have added 2 new album categories : Category:Self-titled debut albums & Category:eponymous sophomore albums I also gave the major album categories links to each other (for a look, go to Category:Debut albums). These include

• Debut albums
• Sophomore albums
• Final albums
• Eponymous albums
• Self titled debut albums
• Eponymous sophomore albums

I hope this is alright, and that it is appreciated. Troubleshooter 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess it's alright, but where does this leave Pearl Jam? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

They would just be in Eponymous albums. It would be silly to have "Eponymous 8th albums" etc. Troubleshooter 19:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Or The Cure? MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 17:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I recall seeing a note somewhere (can't find it now) saying not to use the word "sophomore" to describe records, because this is an Americanism. Is this still an issue?
2. I don't really see the point in Category:Eponymous sophomore albums
3. Not really a fan of Category:Self-titled debut albums either
4. Shouldn't the categories have the same wording: either both "eponymous" or both "self-titled"?
5. The tree seems decent

-Freekee 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Point number 4... I think they should be the same... But Selftitled debut albums should not be Eponymous debut albums, as the former is more recognised. Change Eponymous Sophomore albums to Selftitled Sophomore albums? Troubleshooter 19:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with eponymous debut. It's a phrase in common usage round my turf. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 21:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Try a google search of "Eponymous debut" (311k results) and "Self titled debut" (1.8m results). Troubleshooter 22:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And search for eponymous sophomore album (60,000) vs self-titled second album (2,000,000) or feline (12,600,000) vs cat (672,000,000). "More recognised" doesn't mean "better". If you're gonna change eponymous (3,250,000) to self-titled (5,250,000), why not change debut (176,000,000) to first (3,610,000,000)? Hell, the word probly gets over 1,700,000 results, does that mean it's not wrong? MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 00:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't stand the word sophomore, truth be told. It's an Americanism, yes. "Eponymous" is fine, so it ought to be Eponymous debut albums. That said I don't much see the point in splitting Eponymous albums out by debut, second etc. --kingboyk 17:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What a suprise. You don't like something I did. Now that's a shocker. Troubleshooter 19:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you did ask - I thought you wanted an honest opinion! If it's praise you're after, I think the formatting on the category is real nice. And anyone who likes Weezer can't be too bad, right? :) --kingboyk 20:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol I don't actually like them that much. I'm premusing you saw an edit... But I just like perfecting articles, with anything I can do. Troubleshooter 22:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what sophomore means, and I'm pretty sure there are a fair few others like me. I'm assuming from the context that it means "2nd", but I'd be lost just seeing the word on its own. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 17:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The WikiProject Music says Don't describe an album or other recording as "sophomore" (...) as this is an American usage and is unfamiliar to much of our audience. Jogers (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Like me. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 17:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to confess that I wasn't entirely sure what it meant either, and also had to look it up when a newbie here :) Alas the word pops up quite a lot (I change it when I see it) so I'm used to it now. Still hate to see a classic English indie band's second album called "sophomore" though ;) --kingboyk 19:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what made me create it. I don't know whether you're referring to Libertines or Razorlight, but I thought it was strange that there were selftitled second albums appearing, as it's usually just debut albums. Troubleshooter 19:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't like these categories very much too. I think that Category:Eponymous albums worked fine without subcategories. Jogers (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure what other word to use for Sophomore. I'm not American. Troubleshooter 17:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Second albums" would be acceptable, but I still don't think we need a category for them. You say you were surprised that there were self-titled records that weren't debuts, and I can understand that. If you really think it's important to separate them, I suggest having a category for "eponymous non-debut albums", since I think you will be similarly surprised at how many of them there are at all stages of bands' careers. However, personally, I recommend against adding a category for that either.

In short, I prefer no cats to separate self-titled albums by release order, but if you're going to do it, have a single cat for all non-debuts. -Freekee 20:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I said it was strange (not suprised) that there were self titled second albums (not self-titled records that weren't debuts) appearing. Troubleshooter 06:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but should we post in both Eponymous albums and Self titled debut albums, or should one be a subcat of the other? Either way, it's going to be a lot of work to keep them policed. Nobody but us will know which way it should be. -Freekee 20:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone doesn't do it, it doesn't harm the article, it just makes it slightly incomplete. There are many albums without all the necessary categories. Troubleshooter 22:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

After hearing these comments, I suggest we change the name of "Eponymous sophomore album" to "Self-titled second album". Does anyone agree with this? Troubleshooter 06:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not entirely sure if they are needed, if they are going to stay there definitely needs to be uniformity. Since the top category is 'Eponymous albums', the categories should also use that wording. So that means they should be 'Eponymous debut albums' and 'Eponymous second albums' unless a better, widely recognized word can replace second, as we have already realized that sophomore is not widely recognized. Joltman 12:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll go with this. Troubleshooter 15:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds alright to me too, although maybe Eponymous debut albums and Eponymous non-debut albums might be better? Or "First eponymous albums" and, erm, well I dunno what we'd call it but a category for a band's second or subsequent one... but, anyway, is the crucial point whether an eponymous album was a band's debut or not, or whether it was their first eponymous album? (e.g. The Beatles, not a debut but their first and only eponymous album. That's not a rhetorical question by the way. --kingboyk 19:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC) PS like the new sig much better, doesn't hurt the eyes :)

It's such a tricky subject... How about:

Eponymous Debut Albums & Eponymous Subsequent Albums (subsequent stolen from KingboyK)?

Glad you like it lol Troubleshooter 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I like Eponymous Debut and Eponymous Non-Debut best.

Me too. -Freekee 04:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't like describing anything as "non-something". Whenever I see songs described as "non-album singles", I always change them to say "stand-alone singles". Eponymous debuts is self-explanatory, but I think a list would be better than a category for non-debuts, that way we can say which album they each are (8th, 9th, 12th etc.), and just add the list as the lead page of Category:Eponymous albums. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 12:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There's already List of eponymous albums (artists), it just needs adding which albums they are chronologically. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 12:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Are these intersection categories necessary? We already have Category:Eponymous albums, Category:Debut albums, and Category:Sophomore albums. I don't really see the use of these new ones. --musicpvm 03:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I. Category:Sophomore albums? Category:Second albums was deleted so shouldn't this one be deleted too? Jogers (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Eponymous debut albums would be okay, just as a sub-cat of both Category:Eponymous albums and Category:Debut albums. I don't like the others, though. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 12:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: Find (or create) a category which will accomodate The Cure's "Cure", Pearl Jam's Pearl Jam, P.O.D.'s Payable on Death, and let it be. (If you feel the need to do a bit more, make it accomodate Weezer's self-titled Blue and Green albums. Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 12:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be Category:Eponymous albums. I'm happy to just leave it at that. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 12:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion could [unintentionally] open up a can of worms that may not be worth cleaning up. Think Duran Duran's Duran Duran, Duran Duran, and Duran Duran. Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 12:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you've already removed and changed things, but I don't understand why you're all making such a big deal about it. Troubleshooter 16:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"This album was leaked"

An increasing number of albums has something like "the album was leaked on [date] on BitTorrent" in their lead... Appart from the fact that these sentences are always unsourced, I think they are also unnotable, since pretty much every album is leaked a couple of days before its regular release, and I don't really think it's worth mentioning, except in cases where this had some kind of effect (The Eminem Show being released earlier than originally planned, for example). While I haven't removed any of these sentences from any article, I have seen other editors do it and I was wondering what the general opinion on these is. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to remove them as they are current event information that are ephemeral, diminishing rapidly in meaning over a few days or weeks and trivial, unimportant both at time of posting and in future. Fantailfan 11:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm disagreeing. They're unsourced because they are self-evident. Besides, a link to a torrent site would prove the point adequately. Pretty much every album is leaked? Yes, but pretty much every album gets an official release too; that doesn't diminish its significance. In any case, for albums that have yet to be released such events are the only real-world developments regarding those albums, aside from label press releases. --W guice 14:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A link to the torrent site? Do we really want to encourage that? It seems to me that advertising a torrent site that participates in trafficking commercial music releases is tantamount to using Wikipedia to encourage piracy. I've no interest in starting a debate about piracy itself - whatever your feelings on the topic, it's still illegal, and I'm not sure that it's such a good idea to give free advertising to a website that enables users to do something illegal, if for no other reason than for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility. Aside from all of that, torrent links tend to be pretty transient. Linking to a page that's likely to be gone in a week or a month doesn't seem especially productive on what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Incidentally, count me in as one who agrees with the proposal to delete the references to album leaks that aren't notable. -Erik Harris 18:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• No, personally i don't think we do want to encourage that, but do read it again - i didn't propose actually doing it at any point, i was merely pointing out that it's disingenuous to claim that the reporting of a leak is unsourced/unsourceable, when a simple empirical test (observing it on the page) shows that it patently is sourceable. --W guice 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal but good luck implementing it. Some tides just can't be stemmed. With regards to posting links to sites which breach copyright, I'm pretty sure there's a guideline or policy somewhere prohibiting it. Can't remember where it is at the moment so if anyone's interested you'll have to dig around for it :) --kingboyk 19:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Reports about leaks can be included if they are notable (in example, when the Red Hot Chili Peppers album was leaked, they wrote about that in their blog (or somewhere). That is a notable report of a leak. If MTV reports the album could be found in places before it released, that is a notable report. If it is stated that in MyVeryBigTorrentSite.com the album was leaked a week before released, that is original research. -- ReyBrujo 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is merely stated, then maybe. If the files are demonstrably available for downloading it leaves original research and becomes common knowledge. --W guice 19:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You cannot demonstrate they are for download without including a link to a page or torrent, which is a bordeline case of copyright violation I would prefer skipping. Also, I prefer not to use "common knowledge" arguments. The article must be as informative for fans as for casual readers. I assume common knowledge when stating the sky is blue, the ocean water is salty, the summer is warm, but not in technical issues. -- ReyBrujo 19:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

i addressed that further up in this section. The point isn't to link to torrent sites, the point is that whether anything is linked or not, the information is still patently verifiable by all and sundry, and to insist otherwise merely looks like disingenuous technical quibbling. Also, no offence, but i couldn't really care less about your personal opinion on common knowledge. the whole point of that concept is that it's bigger than individuals' opinions -- W guice 20:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I just don't get the point of posting the information - this isn't a news site. Unless it has an impact on the album's official release date, it is information that is merely ephemeral - "It rained that day" - and trivial. Fantailfan 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to W guice) No offense taken. Consensus is what rules Wikipedia, and so far it appears you are the only one against removing them. Burden of evidence is in the one who is adding the information to the article. Thus, you can't rely on common knowledge to solve these cases, nor expect others to search for a reliable source reporting the leak themselves. I agree on having the leak mentioned if they are so by reliable sources (MTV, musician's blogs, CNN reports, whatever), but not if the only evidence is a torrent file in a server. -- ReyBrujo 21:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(sorry, Rey, I ec'd you). I'm trying to point out that a datum that has to be removed after its "expiration date" is a datum that shouldn't have been there in the first place. In the context of an catalog project, which is what WikiProject Albums is, adding and removing information relating to current events is not meaningful. Fantailfan 21:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Weird Al"'s album pages

In case someone doesn't know, "Weird Al" Yankovic is best known for doing parodys of other peoples work, and as such parodies usually make up about half of each of his albums. Anyway, I'm here to see if his album pages are being done properly. As can be seen at, for example, Running with Scissors and Poodle Hat, Most songs have bulleted information with them, particularly of what they are a parody of in case of the parodies, as well as a list of songs in the polka medleys. Is this really the proper way to deal with it, or should they be discussed or listed outside of the track listing? If anything should be left under the song, should it only be what it parodies and nothing else? Surely saying what the song is about right under the song name is not needed. Joltman 12:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Song descriptions should go in a seperate section, but I think a bullet with what song is parodied is fine in the track listing (similar to listings of samples the Project suggests). --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Would the same go for the polka medley, even though it will be a list of a dozen or so songs? Joltman 14:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

i reckon so. see, for instance, certain rap songs [4] for other instances where a lot of similar information goes under a song title. As for information on more general styles being parodied, etc., i'd see that as information for the main body of the article. --W guice 14:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Another question, what about style parodies? That's where a song parodies not a particular song, but the style of either a particular artist or a genre. Should that be listed under the song as well? Joltman 14:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Those pages are WAY too cluttered. The track details definately need a seperate section. I've also noticed that those pages include the subject of each song ("this song is about..."), what other artist's album pages do that? At most the track listing section should be...

1. "Song Title"
   • A parody of "[[insert song name]]" by [[insert artist]].
2. "Song Title"
   • A pastiche of [[insert artist]]'s career.
3. "Song Title Polka"
   • A medley of [[insert genre]] and/or [[time period]] songs.

...and just leave it at that, to go into (slightly, not much) more detail in a different section. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 14:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why we're not giving him individual song articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Because then there'd be nothing to put on the album page. :) MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Because nobody's written them yet? Seriously, though, let's try to keep the song articles to notable songs. Or have we crossed that line? -Freekee 04:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I like the Weird Al tracklists as they currently exist --Alcuin 22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Guest musician - in track listing or credits?

If there is a guest musician on a track, where should it be noted? In the track listing, like this:

1. "Once Were Warriors"– 3:15
   • Guest vocals by Al Barr

Or should the song be listed as normal and list the guest musician in the credits with all of the other musicians, like this:

• Al Barr – guest vocals on "Once Were Warriors"

I guess another question is would it depend on how many tracks the guest musician was on? As in, if the guest musician was on 3 or 4 of 12 tracks, would it be dealt with differently than if they were just on 1 track? For reference, I usually do it by listing them in the credits, but I wanted to see if I was doing it right. - Joltman 14:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I add the guest musician under Additional personnel and refer to the song by number. Fantailfan 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Al Barr – guest vocals on 1

subsidiary labels as subcategories of major labels

Harvest_Records has always been owned by EMI. Does it make sense to make Harvest into a subcategory of EMI, and delete the EMI category from any Harvest release (unless it has been reissued)? edgarde 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like the right thing to do, if what you say is true. Troubleshooter 06:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Metacritic Suggestion

I suggest that the metacritic link should be included on the "Professional Reviews" section, if it has one. That makes the user to see an overall reaction of the critics, and look for more reviews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jakeshow (talk • contribs) .

It's an alright idea, but Metacritic calculates some reviwes strangely, turning A+'s into % values, and at times, some albums have maybe 5 reviews on that site while others have 30 giving them a sort of bias. It's just as simple and easy to take the review they have there and put them in the professional reviews, since they source them and everything! Andrzejbanas 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It also only goes back to 2000. Fantailfan 22:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Cat:Uncategorised albums

Early notce: the category is back up to around 25 entries, so someone might want to take a look before it keeps growing. Aelfthrytha 19:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• i've (with some other people working at the same time i think) got it down to 25, the ones left are either completely baffling (Ibiza Chillout Mix Volume #4673689467) or will need some article-wide renovation (Pastor Troy album) but i'll have a bash. Now, anyone wanna help clear Cat:Needs album infobox?? -- W guice 11:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Track listing format for LPs and cassettes

I'd like to suggest that, in the case of albums which were originally released only on LP or cassette, separate track listings should be given for Side 1, Side 2 and so forth.

In my view, the arrangement of sides on an album - the fact that side 1 of Sgt. Pepper ends with "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!", for example - is just as important as the ordering of tracks.

There is a lack of consistency at present: compare Rubber Soul with Let It Bleed. AdorableRuffian 15:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, in principle. However, this would mean going through all albums 1984 and earlier. In many cases we'd have to dig around to find the side divisions since in my case I sold the LPs when they came out on CD. There is the release period 1984-1988, when (I think) some CDs came out after the LP. Also, in the period ~1980-1986, cassettes outsold LPs which outsold CDs (the order shifted fairly quickly IIRC), so which is the definitive edition? Food for thought. Fantailfan 16:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile. Not enough for me to go out of my way to change any, but certainly enough not to take out someone else's side references. How about a mention on the project page that dividing tracks by side is acceptable for albums originally released on LP?

But what about the details? Should they be listed Side A, 1, 2, 3; Side B 1, 2, 3. Or Side A 1, 2, 3; Side B 4, 5, 6? The reason I suggest the latter, is because most people listen to CD these days, and this will also accomodate bonus tracks on CDs. This seems preferable to having two different track listings. Two different track listings is my least favorite way. -Freekee 17:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"a mention on the project page that dividing tracks by side is acceptable for albums originally released on LP" Yes. Very much so. Will also go with Side A 1, 2, 3; Side B 4, 5, 6. I've done it with double albums, but rarely single ones myself. Fantailfan 20:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Why exactly are there reviews in the album infobox? These are POV per definition and as such have no place in WP. Spearhead 09:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So are the Academy Awards, and yet they have an article, too. I think that objective discussion of POV opinions surely belongs on Wikipedia, and that how an album was critically received is certainly an important part of an article about an album. An article itself should not be POV, but it surely can mention that there are different opions on the topic and what these opinons are. While "the album X is wonderful" is POV, "Y said the album X is wonderful" is a fact. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So are there any guidelines for what reviews are included? WP:ALBUM isn't much helpful here. My guess would be that the review source must have a WP article. Spearhead 14:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "use your best judgement" isn't very specific. The most commonly used links are listed here. Links to user-submitted reviews like Rate Your Music are not acceptable. Jogers (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)