Template talk:Track listing/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 → Archive 20

Track numbers for vinyl albums

The template example for the vinyl (initial) release of the album The Beatles lists the tracks contiguously, i.e., Side one contains tracks 1 - 8, and then Side two begins with track 9. This is not correct, and is a bad example of how a vinyl album template should look on an article page.

With very few exceptions, the track numbers for vinyl rock and pop albums, in the pre-Amazon and pre-iTunes days, started with 1 on each side of the record. There are albums where the numbering continued on side two, but they are very rare. The template example here needs to be changed. Radiopathy •talk• 00:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with this. In the cases where Side 2 continues the album (ie most LPs), I think the track numbering should continue from where it left off on Side 1. "Martha My Dear" is the ninth song on the album; it is not the first song on a new album. (In fact, in the example given on the Template page, I think Side 3 should start at 18, not 1, and Side 4 at 25). Generally, the only time I think we should start numbering at 1 on Side 2 of a record is in cases where it is a separate album: this might be some theoretical compilation LP where two albums were pressed on either side of an LP; or in the case of a split LP with two bands, where each band has their own side of the LP. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
No one is asking you what you think. The point is, does side two of a vinyl album continue where side one left off, or does the track count begin at "one" again? The answer is that it starts off with track one, and we're not here to reinvent the wheel or create an alternative universe. Radiopathy •talk• 02:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the earlier objection. Most albums are listed as track 1, side 2, etc. They are not continuous. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Tracks are terms that are CD-specific, so one disc's "tracks" are continuous, i.e. the first disc being side one and two, and the second disc being side three and four. Wikipedia doesn't slavishly conform to style of primary sources like the label of a record/disc (as shown here). If they make sense, sure, but I don't see the logic behind one record/disc's first side having its "track listing" end at 8 just so the second side can start at 1 again, IMO. As Ritchie333 brought up at The Beatles (album) talk page, this has also been discussed and presumably put to rest at Talk:Sgt._Pepper's_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band#Track_listing_numbers, where an edit war broke out over this. Dan56 (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I was a radio disc jockey before the invention of the CD, and we most certainly did refer to songs on an album as "tracks", e.g., "...the title track from their new album 'War Child'." Please don't try to reinvent history - and the question of which numbering format to use has not been settled at either Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band or at The Beatles (album), so you're misrepresenting that as well. Radiopathy •talk• 02:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
As I stated above, the term was used for vinyl recordings before CDs were invented. "Title track" was used before CDs were invented. You can see the term "opening track" and occasionally "opening cut" referencing the first song on both sides of the album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
As MrMoustacheMM said above, music industry practices/tradition/silly idiosyncrasies should have no bearing on how an encyclopedia presents its content. What makes the most sense to the common reader/general audience should be considered; logic > convention. Like I said at Talk:Shades_of_Deep_Purple#Edit_War (where this topic has spilled over to), most readers will consider "Mandrake Root" as the fifth track on Shade of Deep Purple. Dan56 (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I see no need to tie something a simple as track numbering to the original scheme. Doing so would get quite tedious where there are multiple releases of an album with variant tracks. For example, on Alpha Centauri, I used notes to indicate the releases of extra tracks on modern versions, otherwise I would have had to create four different track listings. --  Gadget850 talk 20:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The question should be how the original material was released. I'm looking at a vinyl copy of Bob Dylan's Knocked Out Loaded. The songs on side 1 are numbered 1 through 5. The songs on side 2 are numbered 1 through 3. I have other Columbia releases that are numbered the same way. There is no reason why we should number songs continuously unless the artist has done so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I see a reason--logic? Is "Brownsville Girl" the sixth track on Knocked Out Loaded or not? The double quotation marks are missing from song titles on the original LP as well ([1]). Should we forgo common sense in favor of some blind adherence to archaic conventions and omit double quotation marks from the track listing section at Knocked Out Loaded? The song lengths listed on LP labels are in parenthesis, and the songwriters are all listed with without the first name in full even on first-reference, should they be that way at WP:ALBUMS articles too? Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on the medium. As it's laid-out in the article, they list side one and two as though it were a two-sided media. I can assume a vinyl recording, but it could also be assumed to be a cassette. In that case, it's the first song on side 2. So if I play side two first, it would be the first song I hear.
If you have a CD or a download version, it could be considered the sixth track.
If you're looking at the master recording schedule, it could be any number there since we don't have any idea in which order the songs were recorded.
So common sense is to stick with the order provided by the artist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the order of the songs should be respected, but it is time to consider an album as a whole, regardelss of the medium it was or is produced. A track listing should reproduce the order the artist decided, and indicate the number of songs that it contains. Most vinyl LP today are produced as CDs, so should we renumber all the tracks in a new track listing for a CD edition? I don't think so! What is important is the number of songs, not the media! Contiguous numbering grants clarity and the division in side one and two shows that the original album was a LP. That should be enough. Lewismaster (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The album wasn't a whole though. It was two sides. You listened to one side at a time. When the heading is "side two" then you're not looking at track six to start side two.
As for CD reissues, if the track listing is that of the CD, then number it based on tracks (unless it's the Glenn Gould 1981 release of The Goldberg Variations, which had only one track and each variation was an index value off track one). If it's the vinyl recording then you list what the label did. Don't apply your WP:OR to the media. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
C'mon, the fact that you listened to one side at the time was due to the limitations of the media. For what can matter, on the cassettes where I recorded the albums I listened to the songs without interruption. Do you really think that albums are not a whole? Then we should do separate sections/articles for the two sides!?! Tommy is not a continuous sequence of songs? Or Quadrophenia?
For what I see from the discussions here, at Talk:Sgt._Pepper's_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band#Track_listing_numbers, at Talk:The_Beatles_(album)#Track_listing_numbers and at Talk:Shades_of_Deep_Purple#Edit_War of eleven editors that commented on the matter only two sustain the not contiguous numbering on vinyl albums. As I said already this is a matter of style, not content. It regards the info that we, as a community of editors, want to give the reader in a track listing. At the moment there are plenty of examples of both numbering systems in featured and good articles. Can we reach consensus and uniform the numbering to the current MOS? Lewismaster (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how relevant it is, but if you put the Sgt. Pepper's CD in a player, you cannot play the songs on "side two" without selecting track numbers ranging from 7-13, and in fact the album packaging numbers them 1-13 on the back, not 1-6 and 1-7. I.e., "A Day in the Life" is track number 13, not side two; track 7. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not relevant: the discussion is about how to number the tracks when the initial release of an album was on vinyl. Radiopathy •talk• 00:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
What does it matter how the original was? They aren't like that now for 90% or more of all album sales. CD don't have sides, and they are the predominant format after digital. Also, I think the focus here should be expediency. Ask yourself if it's easier to say that "A Day in the Life" is the 13th track on Sgt. Pepper's, or that "A Day in the Life" is the 7th track on side two of Sgt. Pepper's? Is there a guideline that prefers using the the original vinyl format over the more common modern ones like CDs? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it wasn't a limitation of the media. There were theories on how to align tracks for such a medium. Softer tracks were usually included toward the end of a side due to the way that medium was formatted. The "hit" tracks were usually the first on each side so that it would hook the listener into the whole side. And I would actually choose to listen to one side or another because it was that side.
The issue of two albums that don't follow the rule of numbering albums by sides does not mean that it should apply to all other albums. Most albums started numbering again on a new side. So if we're listing albums using the headings "side one" and "side two", then we should number the songs the way that the label and sleeve indicated: usually starting at one. So if we're listing the CD track listing, do it sequentially. If we're listing the special edition download version, list it sequentially. If you're listing the album, do it the way it's stated on the album. I'm not sure why RS doesn't apply to this case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually the limitation of the media comes from the industry choice of using a vinyl disc to reproduce music instead of a cylinder and later from the choice of the single instead of the double pickup. The theory of having soft and hard part distributed separately in the LP remained mostly just that, a theory. Check, for example, any progressive rock, hard rock or metal album to see that it was rarely applied and never became an industry standard. The "hits" placement at the beginning of the two album sides is something much more common, even if it applies more to side one than two. I would hardly define it as an industry standard. But I digress...
What we are discussing here is if we must reproduce in the track listing template of an album originally produced in vinyl the original labels' numbering, or list the number of songs present in the album with a contiguous numbering, just like in most other modern media. There is no Original Research here, the number of songs is an info which comes from the album itself. This is simply a different way of using the template, favouring one over the other information. The proposal that gained more consensus (10 to 2) is to keep the MOS as it is, with no change to the numbering examples and to implement the contiguous numbering. I am no expert of these disputes; is such a majority enough to consider the matter settled? Lewismaster (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
If there was an MoS discussion that yielded a 10 to 2 consensus, then I think this is a waste of time; however, maybe we should take a poll and run an RfC so we can establish a consensus here, versus pushing a consensus from another page. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC regarding track listings

This discussion was a clear "no consensus". There was clearly no support (other than by the proposer) for the second topic of discussion regarding whether to use local consensus on each occasion to decide. Number 57 19:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This RfC is aimed at determining consensus regarding track listings (see discussion above).

Support adding language to this page that recommends listing tracks contiguously (e.g., 1-13)

  1. Vinyl is a dead format that was resoundingly replaced by CDs, then digital downloads. We should not suggest that slavishly reproducing side one and side two track listings in the way vinyls did is required. It's much easier and in keeping with the principle of least astonishment to list them contiguously. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Since I've been invited to contribute here … Echoing some of the sentiments above (and an early discussion on this issue for Sgt. Pepper's), I think the inclusion of the words "Side one", "Side two" is enough, while the track numbering continues uninterrupted. That and other Beatles albums are an exception, admittedly, but most reissues of vinyl-era albums contain bonus tracks, so the contiguous option for track listing works well on that front. [Quick aside: Personally, I loathe how this template renders the information on the page – too much like an accountant's ledger for my tastes – so I avoid using it unless it's absolutely necessary (which the guideline allows for). But whether a template's used or not, we're still talking about the same thing of course.] One album article I expanded recently serves as a good example (I think) of how contiguous track numbering works: Badfinger's Straight Up. A reader gets the important LP-side divide, and the ability to then refer to "tracks 1–12" works with the various bonus-track options over subsequent releases. It's worth bearing in mind also that, by the 1970s, "original release" meant cassettes and 8-track cartridge, and by the 1980s (with the popularity of the Sony Walkman and the like), cassettes were increasingly important; in both those formats, the track order was often changed from that on the LP. So while I do see a logic to "Side two, track 1", I think it's more important to consider how a Track listing section works from top to bottom. JG66 (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Contiguous numbering is to be used to convey the information of how many tracks there are in an album, which should be considered as a whole regardless of the media. At first glance a reader should receive this information from the track listing and the fact that the album was first released on vinyl, or cassette or CD is secondary. The track listing template should be used to give this information first and the division in side one / side two sections is enough to show that the original was a LP. Lewismaster (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per what I said here in the above discussion. Dan56 (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support As author and from arguments I've made in the past to the same effect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support because convention on several FAs has gone down this route and consensus would stop silly edit warring. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Support adding language to this page that recommends listing tracks by sides (e.g., instead of track 13, it might be side two, track 7.

  1. Vinyl is far from dead, and that isn't the point of this RfC. We only list the details of the initial release in the infobox; later releases are discussed in the article body. If a recording was initially released on vinyl, the article is primarily about that vinyl release; all subsequent releases are of secondary importance. For us to list the track numbers of a vinyl album contiguously is misrepresentation, creating our own little alternative universe without regard to the facts.
As far as vinyl being dead, that is far from true, and I acknowledge that a vinyl relase of a contemporary record is of secondary consideration, and there's no need to list the tracks separately - so no argument about which track number begins side two. Radiopathy •talk• 00:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Whether vinyl is dead or not is immaterial to this discussion. If the medium being presented used sequential numbering, regardless of medium, then the track listing should use it. If the medium being presented restarted numbering on different discs, regardless of medium, then the track listing should use it. In other words, if a vinyl recording used sequential numbering, as The Beatles and Pink Floyd did on occasion, the track listing should reflect that. If a vinyl recording started at one on each side, the track listing should use that. If a multi-disc CD set used sequential numbering across the multiple discs that should be used. If a multi-disc CD set restarted numbering on each disc, the track listing should reflect that. We have to use the sources regardless of presumed limitations or otherwise. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. I fail to see the logic in displaying a track listing according to the vinyl format, and using the numbering from the CD format. Showing a "side 2" that begins with track 5 or 6 is just not representative of the truth, apart from in rare cases as Walter Görlitz mentions. I don't believe that sticking to the exact numbering as shown on the LP creates any meaningful problems for the reader when determining which track is which, for example in the personnel section. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    1. And if I may add, it would be a rare reader of English who would not understand that 5 + 5 = 10 or 3 + 6 = 9. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support describing things as they originally existed. (A convenient shorthand for 'track four, side two' is B4.) Rothorpe (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    1. Support: I agree with Rothorpe about describing albums as they originally existed. If the album was published on vinyl, I think it is useful for the track listing to indicate the sides. Perhaps I'm not impartial because of my own listening habits, though (which is mostly vinyl). Michael Barera (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. All albums should be described as originally published. There has always been a variety of methods for track numbering in shellac and vinyl, and Wikipedia is flexible enough (being digital) to accommodate the differences.
    The first albums were collections of 78 rpm records bound in book form. Each 78 rpm disc held two songs. They were numbered in different ways. For instance, the album called Benny Goodman Sextet was issued in 1944 by Columbia Records as album number C 102. It contained four discs with eight songs, one on each side. The songs were numbered 1 through 8 in the form of C 102-1 and C 102-2 on each side of the first disc, C 102-3 and C 102-4 on each side of the second disc, etc. In contrast, the album A Decca Presentation of Boogie Woogie Music was issued in 1940 by Decca as album number 137. The six discs contained twelve songs, one on each side. The sides were indicated by A and B while the discs were numbered 3382 through 3387. Thus the songs were numbered 3382 A, 3382 B, 3383 A, 3383 B, etc. (Nowhere on the album cover, inside or out, is a list of tracks in order. It's my guess that the producers of this album never meant to have the listener play the songs in sequence.) This kind of complexity can be described by Wikipedia.
    Microgroove 33 rpm vinyl also had variation in its numbering system. By far the great majority of albums numbered the songs starting from 1 on side A and then restarting again from 1 on side B. However, Negativland's 1987 CD-era vinyl-only release Escape from Noise ended side A with track 9 and started side B with track 10 for a total of 17 numbered tracks and two un-numbered, with one un-numbered at the beginning and one "hidden" un-named track at the end. By incorporating a hidden track, a CD-style aesthetic was obviously applied to this vinyl-only release. (The CD version was issued later, in 1999.)
    This kind of variation exists in the real world and should be accepted by Wikipedia editors. We should not try and force every album through a notional streamlining machine to re-issue it with new, not-original track numbers. We are not madly wielding a cookie cutter to reshape every album the same as each other. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Radiopathy, what if the album was simultaneously released in CD and vinyl? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Vinyl releases in the CD and download eras are secondary; there would be no track listing for the vinyl version. Radiopathy •talk• 01:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment – Related to the main question -- how tracks should be numbered within a single-disc CD that was also released on vinyl -- can we agree that for albums that were originally released on multiple discs -- either CD or vinyl -- the track numberings should start at 1 for each disc, like this, as opposed to continuous numbering, like this? — Mudwater (Talk) 02:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes absolutely, start at track 1 for each disc. JG66 (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. The discs are two separate physical entities and, for clarity, the template should report how many songs there are on each disc. Lewismaster (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion seems a little out of place. It has less to do with the way the template works, and is more of a style issue. Wouldn't this discussion rather belong to MOS than to some template that implements MOS? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pre-closing Note: I was asked on my talk page to look at and close this RFC. I have no strong opinion on the underlying issue, no prior friendship/enemyship with the participants, nor other issue that would make me involved, so I'm comfortable doing so. Assuming hell doesn't freeze over because Floq is getting involved in a MOS issue.
It certainly looks headed for a "no consensus" decision - that's how I'd close it if I closed it today - but since it relates to the MOS, and is located on kind of a backwater talk page, I'd prefer there to have been more than 3.5 days notice to WT:MOSALBUM. So I'm going to let it stay open a few days longer in case that relatively recent notice brings a couple of more people with new arguments for one or the other option. I'll close by 10/26. Sorry if this feels like dragging it out unnecessarily.
If anyone wants to make a final push before I close, a couple of things that would be useful to know before closing are:
  1. Are there any featured articles that use the Side Two-Track 1 format? All FA's I've seen so far use the Side Two-Track 3 format as shown in WP:MOSALBUM#Track listing, which has been stable for at least a year and a half.
  2. Does anyone have a clearer reason why one approach is significantly more useful to the reader than the other? As @Walter Görlitz: says above, readers should be assumed to know how to add; but then, readers should also be assumed to know how to subtract. I don't see any convincing argument that one is significantly clearer than the other; if you have such an argument, now's the time.
  3. Mention was made by @Lewismaster: about a 10-2 consensus somewhere in favor of the format currently shown on WP:MOSALBUM. I haven't found that 10-2 consensus yet. Anyone have a link?
If it makes anyone feel any better, I'm pretty firmly convinced that neither approach adversely impacts the reader any more or less than the other. People will figure it out fairly effortlessly, no matter which approach is used. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - whether an article is an FA or not has nothing to do with the use of "Side Two - Track 1" formatting; if any article about a vinyl release uses anything other than the formatting that was used on that album, it is wrong and needs to be changed - FA or not. Radiopathy •talk• 00:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "It's wrong". "It's wrong". "It's WRONG"! "Waaaaaaaaaaaah!" I'm sorry, but "screw the FAs, I'm right and everyone else is wrong" is not really a convincing argument for me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
You're missing the point though. The FAs were in that format because they were either following a flawed format (the one we're discussing here) making it a circular argument or because the album was originally numbered continuously (Sgt. Pepper, Shade of Deep Purple). Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious that Radiopathy and Walter Görlitz cannot be convinced that the clear exposition of the number of songs in a track listing is more relevant and useful to a reader than math exercises or the slavish reproduction of labels. We will just have to live with that. However, the claim that hundreds of FA or GA articles are "flawed" appears risky, when dozens of editors and reviewers accepted and approved the contiguous numbering implemented there. Lewismaster (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
You've never heard of "Monkey see, monkey do"? Or "The blind leading the blind"? Radiopathy •talk• 00:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious that Lewismaster is either unclear of the meaning of "clear exposition", he's misrepresenting our position, doesn't understand it or he just can't (or won't) do the simple math that my four-year-old son was able to do. Because when I list side one tracks one through five and then side two tracks one to five it's imminently clear to me that there are ten tracks on the album. If there has been a CD reissue with bonus tracks, I list them starting at one as well. So unless an editor or read is incapable of doing the math, it's clear. The continuous numbering offers no more of a clear exposition and there's no "math exercises".
As for "slavish reproduction of labels", drop the hyperbole. We have WP:V and WP:RS. They're not "slavish reproduction", they're editing guidelines. I can look at my albums and see side one lists songs starting at track "1". Side two also start at track "1". I have no vinyl recordings in my collection that go against that, but I do understand that there are some that do. If that's "slavish reproduction of labels", we should all be slavish.
What a few editors, not dozens, have stated here is that we can use continuous track listing. No one gave a coherent reason why, and not one gave a policy- or guideline-based argument. If this was an AfD, you'd all be ignored. That's what I plan to do as I edit album articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
And for the record, those who weighed in on the RfC were six in favour of continuous track listing to four in favour of the correct way as reported on the recordings, not 12 to 2 as he stated. Is that an intentional misrepresentation or more hyperbole? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Apparently if I have problems with math, Walter Görlitz is in trouble reading my lines. We conceive the use of the track listing template for two different purposes, which were both abundantly explained in the long discussions here and on other talk pages. The dozens of editors I mentioned are not the ones that animated the discussion, but the authors and reviewers of FA and GA articles with the contiguous numbering track lists, who according to Radiopathy are somehow similar to blind monkeys. The contiguous numbering for vinyls is part of the MoS, which was never put under scrutiny for this detail with a discussion on the correct talk page. Instead harassing and edit warring was used to bludgeon a partial and narrow-minded vision of truth. As it is evident from the long discussion, not everybody is in agreement with you on how to use the track listing and most of the no-sayers are more seasoned editors than I am. You are not aknowledging any of the reasons we brought, but I perfectly understand your point of view. I don’t agree with it for reasons of practicality, clarity and coherence with other editions of the same album, but I would apply your side one/side two numbering if the consensus was reached on your proposal. Saying that other opinions on a matter of style should be ignored doesn’t help, as it implies that all other editors are either ignorant or acting in bad faith.
The 10 to 2 ratio (not 12 to 2) comes from counting the pros and cons in the older discussions "before the current poll", as is clearly stated in my note to Floquenbeam of 22 October. The current RfC is what counts, I guess. A pair of good glasses? Lewismaster (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The 10 to 2 ratio comes from a discussion about edit warring that started at Talk:Sgt._Pepper's_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band#Track_listing_numbers, then went along at Talk:The_Beatles_(album)#Track_listing_numbers and at Talk:Shades_of_Deep_Purple#Edit_War, before arriving here. Before the current poll only User:Radiopathy and User: Walter Görlitz supported the Side Two-Track 1 format. Lewismaster (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus on the related question, or subsidiary question, "that for albums that were originally released on multiple discs -- either CD or vinyl -- the track numberings should start at 1 for each disc, like this, as opposed to continuous numbering, like this" -- see above. I'd like that to be added to MOS:ALBUM#Track listing. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
In reply to Lewismaster.
You're mixing oranges and water bottles. Those discussions were about specific albums where the numbering was continuous. I support those decisions. Most albums do not use continuous numbering.
Second, RfCs are not polls.
Third, "here" is where general discussion related to album track listing should be made, not on individual article pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I was only answering to Floquenbeam, who asked me about the 10-2 ratio that I counted in three different but continuous discussions. I recapped the history of the discussion. By the way, most album articles use continuous numbering. RfC may not be polls formally, but they certainly look a lot like them, with editors supporting one side against the other. I think it's not a coincidence that WP:Polls redirects to WP:Requests for comment. Lewismaster (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the notion that vinyl is dead. On the contrary, it is quickly coming back in a big way. As an example, Pink Floyd's new album The Endless River will be released in both CD and vinyl formats, with the vinyl format being the most expensive option. That said, I'd prefer to see tracks numbered sequentially across sides; but sides should still be mentioned. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

As this discussion and RfC has ended with no clear consensus, I would like to suggest an alternate proposal.

Proposed addition: Tracks may be listed contiguously or by side as determined by local consensus.

Support proposed addition
  1. Since we are evenly split on which way should be preferred, we ought to allow local consensus to determine whether to list tracks contiguously or by side. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose proposed addition
  1. Oppose - It's not a consensus issue. It's what the sourced indicate for the album. Consensus is immaterial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - It's not a matter of preference: vinyl album sides almost invariably start with track one - our only choice is to reflect that reality. Radiopathy •talk• 03:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. If "local consensus" means new edit wars and endless discusssions where we only agree to disagree, I oppose. Lewismaster (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
  • As a subsidiary point, in the discussions above there is a consensus that "for albums that were originally released on multiple discs -- either CD or vinyl -- the track numberings should start at 1 for each disc, like this, as opposed to continuous numbering, like this". That wording (or something a lot like it) should be included in the Album Article Style Guide. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not about what a local discussion decides as we're not reliable sources. It should be what sources indicate. In the absence of reliable sources, then you could fall back on consensus, but not before. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, absent a clear consensus here to recommend one way or the other, this issue automatically defaults to local consensus anyway. Otherwise, which guideline would someone point to to defend their listing tracks either contiguously or by side? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Well you're wrong. There's a guideline here to make it continuous. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
So, was the purpose of this discussion and RfC to propose a change to the existing guideline? If so, then the consensus is for the status quo; i.e., listing tracks contiguously. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I've updated the Album Article Style Guide, with this edit, to reflect the subsidiary or secondary point that "For albums that were originally released on multiple discs, either CD or vinyl, the track numberings should start at 1 for each disc...", because everyone who commented on this point in the discussion above agreed with this. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Track_listing/Archive_15&oldid=1091978456"