Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 44

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

→

Hits Daily Double

Hi. I've noticed some editors using the site HITS Daily Double as a source for US sales. Can anyone say if it's reliable or not? Dan56 (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, while Hits Daily Double's projected first-week sales figures are occasionally cited in other media (e.g., by MTV, BET, and XXL Magazine), the industry's "official" sales source is Nielsen SoundScan, which is named in virtually every article on the subject of actual sales (e.g., [1][2][3][4][5][6]). Note that I use the term "actual sales" loosely because all US sales figures are estimates. Anyway, Hits uses a different tracking system than SoundScan, whose sales figures are reflected on the Billboard charts. Here is a statement from Billboard's Director of Charts on the differences between Hits and SoundScan:

"The numbers for the sales figures collected by Hits magazine and posted on its Web site are projections based on data from a limited number of the retailers who share point of sale information with our charts source, Nielsen SoundScan. Hits retail editor Mark Pearson generally does a commendable job of approximating the sales figures that drive Billboard's charts but there are discrepancies from time to time, particularly for titles that sell particularly well at department stores. Nielsen SoundScan's sample is based on actual consumer purchases at a universe of more than 90% of the U.S. market, a wider sample than Hits or any other source can tout. Therefore, I am not just being a company guy when I say that in the event that a Hits number disagrees with ours, the Billboard/SoundScan total is likely the more accurate one."

Since Hits appears to be a more "limited" version of the SoundScan system, and given that I can find no media sources crediting Hits for actual sales figures, I would tend to avoid using Hits as a reference to say that, for example, the Cranberries' most recent album has sold 172,000 copies to date in the US, or that it sold 29,000 copies in its first week of availability. Perhaps in some special circumstances it might be of interest to mention projected first-week sales for a particular album, when citing Hits would then be reasonable. Gongshow ^Talk 08:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Original research

Hello, project members. Have any of you noticed edits by this person? He/she sheems to be adding unreferenced material about recordings and chart positions to various articles without any references at all. I hope someone will check this out and see if you can help him/her or else remove the WP:OR. Happy editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I Get a Kick out of You

I'm not certain enough of the guidelines, could someone comment on I Get a Kick out of You and WP:ALBUMCAPS? Should "out" really not be capitalized? --Muhandes (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the first part of a compound preposition, so according to the guideline it should be capitalized ("...Out of You"). (That's according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capitalization#Composition titles; this point isn't yet mentioned at ALBUMCAPS.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked since my understanding of English is far from perfect, and your answer proves I did right since I don't understand it :) I prefer that someone who can protect the decision moves the page, since I sure can't. --Muhandes (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've started a move request on the article talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What happens when an album name is intentionally contrary to any generally accepted rules of English? I can think of a number of instances where capitalization (or lack of) is intentional. -- sugarfish (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As with any encyclopedia, we go by the standard English rules of capitalization outlined in the manual of style, regardless of how the record label capitalizes it. There are a number of reasons for this; one is that the official capitalization of an album's title is often wildly inconsistent, so determining the one true capitalization for every album would be impractical. In a few cases it may be appropriate to mention an intentional mis-capitalization within the article, but for the title we go by standard English.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Various artist compilation albums

Many compilation album series (e.g. Now! That's What I Call Music and Radio 1's Live Lounge etc) have had articles created for each individual volume in the series. I believe it is much more worthwhile to have an article about the compilation series as a whole because it is the series which is well-known and notable, rather than each volume. These articles about individual albums are mostly stubs and do not give much information apart from the track listing, release date and other trivia.

I have re-directed several stubs to the parent article for some compilation series such as Clubland, Bonkers and The Annual and have also added chart positions and certifications (which shows the article's notability), however I was told to open a discussion about the matter. I think this way, it makes it much more easier to see how the series has progressed, readers can compare albums against each other and mainly it will condense several stubs about the subject into a single manageable article.

I realise for some large compilation series such as Now! it would be almost impossible to condense into a single article, but for most other smaller series this seems like the best thing to do. On an additional note, some people may consider this to make the articles too long by including all the track listings for each volume in one article, so may I suggest that the tracklistings be made expandable for each separate volume, which will shorten the length of the article but will still include all the neccessary information. Please feel free to discuss the idea and contribute with any suggestions - 0800abc123 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure That's fine and reasonable, but please stop taking them out of the categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of an example where each volume is separately notable, so I will have to agree. However, instead of redirecting perhaps you should be merging. See for instance Saint-Germain-des-Prés Café which was actually created by merging all the individual entries (see on the talk page). --Muhandes (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that some compilation series (e.g. Now! That's What I Call Music) may be completely different in different countries. While I don't think they each (necessarily) merit their own article, this should be kept in mind whenever possible. I bring up the earlier example for instance, because the UK version of the series started over 20 years before a similar series in the US. -- sugarfish (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Grande-Rock.com

I have Emerald Forest and the Blackbird on my watchlist, and I have in the last few days been involved with a conflict of interest somewhat relevant to this page. A user named User:AORmaniac13 has posted information connected to grande-rock.com, which I initially questioned the notability of. As you can see on the user's talk page, (s)he didn't like the fact that I had removed the information twice. Since the person objected to me doing so, I have not removed anything that (s)he has added to the aforementioned album article since due to the conflict of interest. Does anyone have opinions on grande-rock.com and whether or not it should be utilized on Wikipedia? Also, note that this page is not mentioned on WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE yet. With this question, I want to remain neutral and not try to sway the opinion to either way. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 06:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know about WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE... so it's time to put Grande Rock there... as this site is one of the oldest ones... when the internet wasn't so easy to access or to have a website or even to share your thoughts so easily. The guys that maintain it were editors in many magazines in Greece as well. Hard Rocker 13 00:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Call Me Burroughs

Hello. I would like someone from this project to take a look at the album article I am creating in my userspace, Call Me Burroughs and give me some feedback. Specifically, I want to know if there are any glaring omissions, or if I have formatted or organized anything incorrectly, etc. I do not feel that the article is "finished," but I do feel the basics have been covered, and the article is close to the point that it can be published. First, though, I would like to hear some opinions from members of this project. Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good for the most part. Three things that I would fix:

The infobox is only supposed to cover the original release, so references to the reissue should be removed.
I can't point you to a relevant policy page, but I believe phrasing such as "As Miles says," is considered a break from WP: NPOV, since it implies that Wikipedia endorses the quoted statement.
For the first blockquote under "Influence", there is no introduction to indicate who or what is being quoted.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I had wondered about having the reissue information in the infobox; for some reason, it did not feel right. And you are right about the two quotes, that needs to be made more clear. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixing a string of problems with text and referencing

There is a discussion of problematic text not supported by references, and falsified references added by Legolas2186 to articles about songs, albums, concert tours, and to biographies. Anybody wishing to help verify sources or rework the indicated text are welcome to join the effort.

Here is the original discussion:

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Legolas2186_possibly_falsifying_references

Here is the ongoing workpage for listing problems and for listing fixes.

User talk:Legolas2186/Fixing citation problems

Thanks for your attention! Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

FoxNews?

A review by FoxNews of Beyonce's B'Day album was included in the article, and I'm not sure it's a professional music review source. Comments? Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal comment requested

Please comment on a merge proposal at Talk:3 Doors Down EP (1996 album). Thanks.

Track listing standards

A cleanup template {{Cleanup-tracklist}} links to this page, but the section it used to link to is no longer here. Could someone who knows where it should link update the template. It currently links to a sub-section titled #track listing. AIRcorn (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Convert the track listing to Template:Track listing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I updated the template to say this.[7] Someone may want to check that this is correct. AIRcorn (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Although the template is now gone, it should actually have pointed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body#Track_listing. Evidently, the styleguide has become rather hard to find. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the style guide for album articles, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body, is hard to find. It always takes me a while to track it down when I occasionally want to refer to it, and I'm used to looking for it. I'm guessing that some other editors never find it. It seems to me that the main project page should be modified to make it much more obvious where it is. — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, looking at this a little more, it's kind of like the album article style guide is divided in two. Half of it is in the "Style" section of the main project page, and half of it is in the "Article body" sub-page. What do folks think about combining the two -- either on the main project page or on a sub-page? And if on a sub-page, making it obvious where to find it, like by having just a sentence about it with a link as the "Style" section of the main page? — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on merging or not, but I am glad that at least a link has been provided to this page! Until now, I always thought "gee it would be nice to have a page that outlined how to write an album article", and it turns out there was one all along. How about creating a WP:REDIRECT code for it for quick reference (for example, so my edit summary can say "Fixed personnel per WP:SOMEREDIRECTCODE")? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

To give the devil his due, there are currently two links to the "Article body" sub-page from the main project page -- one in the "Departments" section, and one at the end of the "Style" section. But my previous suggestion still stands. Let's combine the two parts of the album article style guide, either on the main project page, or on a subpage with a super-obvious link from the main page. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair use: Categories serving as de facto galleries?

I created a category for King Crimson's album covers.

Such categories serve as de facto galleries.

Have we had complaints form artists, musicians, or other copyright-holders that such de facto galleries exceed fair use?

P.S. I left a copy of this at the category's talk page, which is watched by very few.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that displaying non-free album covers in this manner doesn't jibe with WP's non-free content rules. Fortunately there's a code you can insert that will prevent the images from displaying in a gallery. It's used all over Category:Album covers by recording artist & looks like this:

__NOGALLERY__ 

I've placed it in the King Crimson category for you; You can see the result. Please use this code any time you create a category for album covers. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi IllaZilla!

Thank you for your quick and helpful response.

Following your advice, I implemented that command in Category:King Crimson album covers by P J Crook, succesfully! :)

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Album article style guide

I'm proposing that a new Album Article Style Guide be created, by combining the "Style" section on the project page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Style) with the "Article body" sub-page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body). The style guide can either be a new sub-page of the project page, linked to very prominently from the project page, or else it can be part of the project page itself. Although I think a new sub-page would be better -- how about Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide? There's some preliminary discussion of this idea in the #Track listing standards discussion section above. It seems to me that this is a worthwhile idea. Right now the album article style guidelines are half in one place and half in another, and also I think a lot of people don't find the article body part, even though it's linked to from the main project page. Thoughts? — Mudwater^(Talk) 12:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure But what's the problem exactly...? Where are the two halves of the album style guide? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Half is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Style, and half is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body. The "first half" gives general style guidelines for album articles -- naming the article, formatting and capitalization, linking to source material, and so on. The "second half" talks about how to structure and format the different parts of the article -- infobox, track listing, personnel, critical reception section, and so on. That's not bad -- one could even argue that general and specific style guidelines are two different topics -- but I think combining the two, in a very prominently linked-to sub-page, would have two advantages. (1) It would combine the two places where we document the album article style guidelines (both the general style guidelines, and the guidelines about how to structure and format the different sections of the article). (2) It'll make it easier for editors to find the information that's currently in the "Article body" subpage, which several people, including me, have said that it's hard to find, although it's a little hard to judge that once you know where it is. — Mudwater^(Talk) 14:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah I'd recommend writing up a userspace draft of this. Also, I would like to point out that a lot of style-type information is within the template documentation of {{Infobox Album}} as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Making it easy to find is a plus to me. I didn't take part in the decision for Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body to be split out to begin with; all I did was clean up attribution issues. But it was part of this page until December 2010, and this discussion, which didn't ever go any further than that. In retrospect, splitting it out seems to have been a bad idea, as it really only resulted in people losing track of it. I'd support putting it back where it started. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The combined style guide would be something like this. :-) Again, there would be a prominent link to the new page, from the main project page, probably under a section header of "Album article style guide", to make it very easy for other editors to find. — Mudwater^(Talk) 14:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's easy to find, I'm happy. :) It's okay with me if it doesn't go back on the page as long as its all prominently linked up. And the combo document looks good to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead with this. The original suggestion was made nine days ago, and no one's objected. I really do think this will be a nice improvement. — Mudwater^(Talk) 14:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the new, combined style guide page has been created, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide, and there's a link to it from a new section of the main project page. Again, to create the new page, all I did was take the then-current versions of the "Style" section of the project page and the "Article body" sub-page, stick them together, and make a few minor changes to account for that fact that they're combined now. Thanks to everyone who has participated (or will participate) in the discussion. — Mudwater^(Talk) 14:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Great! I've fixed attribution issues per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia - we need to maintain intact histories of contributions for legal license purpose. :) I merged one of the subpages in and provided the requisite edit summary for the merge from the other page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. — Mudwater^(Talk) 16:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to do something sensible with all this. :D We've long needed it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that looks great! Extremely handy to have all that information in one spot. Good work! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Eminem Albums

A few of Eminem's album pages have recently come under dispute over whether the record Infinite should be listed as the rappers debut studio album. Many sources agree that the debut studio album is the Slim Shady LP, with some acknowledging that Infinite was his first full length solo project (having initially only released around 1,000 copies, only 70 being sold). However some editors believe that Infinite is in fact the first studio album. As you can imagine, this has caused quite of bit of disruption, with both sides claiming that they are correct. The opening line of every album article is being changed back and forth constantly(i.e. "The Marshall Mathers LP is the rapper Eminem's second studio album", to "The Marshall Mathers LP is the rapper Eminem's third studio album". I hope a discussion here will help resolve the issue. Aunty-S (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The source that you put even says that his first album was Infinite. I do not understand the difference between "first album" and "debut album", could you please explain? The fact that it did not sell very many copies is irrelevant. Basilisk4u (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Why does it say your username is Aunty-S instead of Green-Halcyon? Anyway Basilisk4u says the points I have been struggling to reach with you. A debut album would be the first appearence of the artist, correct? Infinite was recoded first and it was on an independent label so of course it will not get big noteriety. That is like an author writing a smalltime story and it is sold locally, but not world wide. The Slim Shady LP is his MAJOR-LABEL DEBUT, not his debut in general. He got famous and from that album and that was the first album people really knew him by, doesn't mean Infinite doesn't count. I think you are only basing this off the fact that he was known by TSSLP first as it was his intro to the world in general. Infinite was rare and unheard of largely so that is why people say TSSLP is his debut and TMMLP is his second when that is inaccurate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not merely just a site to echo whatever anyone says. Yes you provided sources, but many of them don't prove anything and just repeat what I said earlier. In one of your sources Eminem even confirms Infinite as his first album. We say it is his debut and first because IT WAS HIS FIRST ALBUM RECORDED...while saying TSSLP is his major-label debut. Please acknowledge this difference. Sales dont' make an album. It just didn't have great success. You think it was some small project that doesn't mean a thing when it does. You think he planned on making TSSLP to become rich and famous? No it just worked out that way. Infinite was his first CD he made in hopes of getting radio air time. Also you are really fucking up the Eminem discography page. So please stop with this stubbornness. Also just as another case in point: You think I am not reading your sources properly when I am. On one of the NY times articles you referenced for Recovery it even says in the first paragraph "On Monday he released “Recovery” (Aftermath/Interscope), his sixth solo album on a major label." So even your sources would logically agree with me. Banan14kab (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I just remind everyone to watch their language. Being civil is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Please work hard to assume good faith even where you do not agree with or understand somebody else's edits. (BTW, I had to learn that the hard way as well.) – Fayenatic L (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I am not denying that Infinite was his first album, I just deny that it was his Debut STUDIO album, Infinite is an Indie release. The MTV source that you refer to says exactly this. The Rolling Stone and Eminem.com sources do not include Infinite as part of the studio albums discography, with Rolling Stone acknowledging that it exists. I have provided a considerable amount of sources to back up my edits, while you have provided none. I apologise if one of the NY Times links was incorrectly referred to, just an honest mistake. I will ask you both that you stop with your disruptive editing, and not to continue edit warring. BTW my signature is Aunty-S because that was the previous name of my account, just never got around to changing it. Aunty-S (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There, I fixed the Eminem discography accordingly Aunty-S (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Again what is the difference? Isn't first debut? We've also said The Slim Shady LP is his debut, just his MAJOR-LABEL one. Also just because only MTV referred to it as an Indie release doesn't mean it is not hip hop. He is obviously rapping in it after all and songs like "It's OKay" have hip hop music behind it. Also I haven't provided sources because my reasoning is obvious and I have even showed you how some of your sources are flawed. If you don't count Infinite as his debut and only as his first album I see your point and I won't change that, but by the same logic The Slim Shady LP is only his MAJOR-LABEL debut, not his first album. It is definitely his second. Regardless of how well known Infinite is it is his FIRST just like you said, which makes 'TSSLP his SECOND in his discography. How many times do I have to tell you? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Just because your sources don't acknowledge Infinite doesn't discount it. It's like I have to keep hammering it into you. Also you are edit-warring with us as well so don't act like a victim being attacked. I will not stop as long as you continue. The articles were fine before you started all this. Eventually I am going to report you. You are severely messing things up. Also can you please space your replies accordingly? I have to keep doing it... Banan14kab (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Also how can you deny Infinite as a studio album? You even edited the page to say it is his first full-length packaged album. It was RECORDED IN A STUDIO. The Bassmint Studio run by the Bass Brothers to be exact. It's like you don't care if you make no sense as long as you get your way. Banan14kab (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(undent) Sounds to me like Infinite was his first studio album, and TSSLP was his first major-label album (and second album overall). Pretty straight-forward. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This is not even worth arguing about. Green-Halcyon, we are not disputing that the sources are reliable. It is that you are misinterpreting them, and engaging in edit wars before consensus has even been reached. I believe that it is agreed that Infinite was his first studio album, and TSSLP was his first major-label album and second album overall. Can we end this for good? Basilisk4u (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that Infinite appears to be Eminem's first studio album and TSSLP is his first major-label studio album (The Marshall Mathers LP is his second major-label studio album, etc). I would add that Infinite should probably not be listed twice on Eminem's discography page. I prefer it remain listed with his other studio albums - the best comparison I can think of right now is the Katy Perry discography, which contains her pre-"Katy Perry" independent studio album, Katy Hudson. If desired, perhaps a note concerning Infinite's local distribution and/or relative scarcity (i.e., only 'x number of' copies produced) can be added to the "Album details" box. Gongshow ^Talk 08:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Category templates for child cats of Category:Albums by artist and Category:Albums by record label

Would these two templates be helpful to the project: {{Albums category}} and {{Album label category}}? They've existed quietly for over a year, created and used primarily by their author with no exposure or notice to other editors. The use of the albums category template will automatically add a intro statement ("This category contains albums by Foo") and Category:Albums by artist into new categories, with the creator of the new cats only needing to add additional appropriate categories (by genre/nationality) or, if necessary, a defaultsort. If acceptable, these can then be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Categorization as an option or suggestion for creating categories for an artist's albums or for record labels that don't already exist. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Relevant CfD for the Project

Please see here For a potential new scheme for categorizing album covers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

MOS changes to Personnel section

Please see here I made some changes to reflect different ways of listing performers when the credits to an album get more complicated. As always, my prose is not great, so please polish it. I also changed the last names of the fake performers, so that they will all appear in alphabetical order. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And again I've edited again for another type of personnel list. I think this covers most types of usages currently employed or worth exploring. As always, please leave any changes there or suggestions here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

GA album review

Please assist I've put some work into New Multitudes and it would be nice if someone decided to polish it up a little before it goes through WP:GA. For that matter, the GA process has a perpetual backlog (including in albums) that could always use reviewers. I don't feel qualified to do it myself, but if anyone's game to read some (potentially) good articles about albums, it's always there... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Albums by certification

Category:Albums by certification and its category tree have been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Muhandes (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Project navbox

I just started {{WikiProject Albums navbox}} to better link related pages in this project. I've been wanting to do this for a long time as I've always felt some editors aren't even aware of all the related WP:ALBUMS pages. Feel free to add more links or reorganize if necessary. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont know why this was necesary. All of this should already be added in the main page. Not as a navbox. It would be much better finding a way to organize the main page first, and see what we can add....an infobox for a wikiproject i find unnecessary aswell I'll see what i can do to make a better page for the main article.Lucia Black (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Useful I think this is useful if for no other reason than it provides navigation to user essays. I've invoked TenPoundHammer's law before a number of times and I've just discovered Genre Warriors--it's useful to point to these instead of re-hash arguments ad infinitum. Interlinking in text and with a navbox is ideal to my mind. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The main article can do a better job at that. Incorporating a navbox is ideal in multiconnected articles. For a wikiproject? why bother adding navigation at the bottom of the wikiproject page if the entire wikiproject page is suppose to do that?Lucia Black (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Interlinking Because you could be on the page about record review sites and then want to navigate to the page about the MOS for albums. If every page has an identical "See also" section, then it should have a navbox instead. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's unnecessary for the main wikiproject itself to have a navbox if the entire page is suppose to show all that.Lucia Black (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure But how can one page show all this content? That would be unwieldy--that's exactly why there are subpages... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Lucia Black meant that the existing sub-pages should be easy to find from the main project page without a navbox, if the main page is well organized and laid out. I agree with that point, but it seems to me that also having the navbox will make it easier to navigate between the different sub-pages. So, I don't see any harm in having the project navbox. — Mudwater^(Talk) 10:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point. theres no point having it here in the main wikiproject page.Lucia Black (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Very clear, concise, and useful. Thank you for creating. J04n(talk page) 11:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Standard and Latin album RIAA certifications

A few months ago, I brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies on what to do if an album received both a standard and a Latin certification from the RIAA and I believe the suggestion brought there should also be brought to album articles. Basically, if an album receives both a standard and a Latin certification from the RIAA, whichever one with the higher shipping value should be used. For example, if an album receives a Gold certification and 4× Platinum (Latin field), the former should be used because 500,000 units is higher than 400,000 units. Likewise, if an album receives a Gold certification and 6× Platinum (Latin field), the latter should be used because 600,000 units is higher than 500,000 units. If both certifications result in the value, then it should be up to editor/consensus to decide which one to use. I would like a consensus on this decision. I think it should also apply to musician biography articles as well. Erick (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Aerosmith#Discography

So I keep trying to put this into the standard as every other page, listing just studio albums and their year of release, but people keep putting back the charts with sales info and single info too, saying they're used to it like that and it enhances the article, let alone the fact Aerosmith of course have their own discography page for such info. Any help? Have shown them the guideline and they don't care! lolYellowxander (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Frank Zappa discography

There has been repeated attempts to vandalize this and Template:Frank Zappa by mixing together the live, studio and compilations to remove any distinction between a album of new studio recordings, an album of new live recordings and albums which clearly serve as compilations, either of previously released material, or outtakes, or posthumous compilations that have no connection to a conceptualized album envisioned by the artist during his life time.--WTF (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Live At Angkor Wat

Could I get some help with this article? It's my first substantial editing work on an album article. Thanks! —danhash (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Album ratings bot

So the album ratings bot has stalled yet again. We're up to something like 75% done, with 12,000 articles left to go. Can someone figure out how to get it up and running again, so we can finish this off? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Tim1357 was working on that, so I've asked him about it, at User talk:Tim1357/Archive 10#Album ratings bot. — Mudwater^(Talk) 10:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Tom Waits album genres

This seems like as good a place as any to have a centralized discussion of the genres on Tom Waits' albums. A discussion could take place on the talk page of everyone of his albums, but I do not think that would be helpful. Waits has changed styles and has shown the influence of a great many styles of music, but I still think it is accurate to say that he is a singer-songwriter in the rock tradition. He is not a jazz musician, a blues musician, or an experimental musician, but all of those styles can be heard on his albums. Currently, there is a discussion ongoing on the Small Change article because the genre was changed to jazz. I simply do not think this can be accurately defined as a jazz album. It is a rock album with a lot of jazz, R&B, and blues influence. Genres on numerous other Waits albums have been changed multiple times to satisfy various editors opinions. There needs to be one discussion of this issue. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing The simple solution is to have a source for genres. If a reviewer says that the album has "X" style, then you can put that in the infobox. If not, it's WP:OR. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Justin on this one. If Waits' albums have a lot of style & influence changes over his career, then the best approach is for each album article to have a section dedicated to discussing the musical style of that particular album. Make sure the content is properly sourced, and then make sure the infobox accurately reflects the article's prose. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree with Koavf and IllaZilla on this one. If no sources are around, then no genre assertions should be made. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that approach. Especially on albums like The Black Rider and Alice, in which Waits ventures into a European cabaret sound, a section to discuss the style/genre would be better than an unsourced claim in the infobox. I have been watching Waits-related articles for a long time, and the genres get changed entirely too often, and generally with no explanation. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 23:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Album page title not italicising?

I've created a page for an album named Everything Is Boring and Everyone Is a Fucking Liar and for some reason the page title won't go italic, even when I attempted adding the {{Italic title}} template... Anyone know why this may be?! Cheers, Nik thestoned 15:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it's 52 characters long, which is over the 50-character limit that {{italic title}} can handle. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK... Thanks for the swift response! Is there any way round this? Cheers, Nik thestoned 15:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Was JUST about to try {{DISPLAYTITLE}} - would appear you beat me to it! Hmmm... Nik thestoned 15:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither {{italicstitle}} nor {{DISPLAYTITLE}} seem to work for me though... -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, after the infobox... -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, yea, I meant that I was about to try the same possible-solution, but you beat me to it! As it turns out, it WAS the right fix... in the wrong place! Thanks for your assistance

! Nik thestoned 15:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Or, when everything else fails, read the documentation of {{Infobox album}}. This issue is discussed right at the top, along with the solution, which is to add |Italic title=force. --Muhandes (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm, cheers! Nik thestoned 11:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible FA

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything That Happens Will Happen Today/archive4 I'm sorry to go stumping for this, but I've worked really hard on Everything That Happens Will Happen Today and I'd like someone to comment on the FAC so it can finally pass. Will someone please leave feedback there? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

American Idiot GA nom

Yasht101 (talk · contribs) has nominated American Idiot for GA. Yasht101 plans to retire from Wikipedia in a couple of days, so anyone willing to put their eyes on and participate in the GAR would be appreciated. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Alive or Just Breathing peer review

I recently re-wrote the article for Killswitch Engage's second album, Alive or Just Breathing. I was wondering if I could get someone to do a peer review for it. That would be awesome. My goal is to get this to Good article status. Thanks, Burningclean _[speak] 06:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I will peer review it later today. From a glance, it looks great – that is my favorite Killswitch album. Ironically I was on this page because I've been rewriting the album pages for Shadows Fall. I've been trying to figure out which review sites to include, and which to not. Jesterhead57 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Video Albums

I'm sure this has been discussed before, so forgive me. But do we have a standard size for the cover of a video album? I don't think it's covered in the style guide, so I've been either winging it and taking a guess, or ignoring them. Thoughts?Jasper420 01:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had this same question when working with cover images of video albums. Couldn't find a satisfactory answer. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a guideline but personally I resize anything that is >300 pixels vertically or horizontally. J04n(talk page) 02:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There were some album covers that I uploaded at 500x500 pixels. They were tagged as too large. I resized them to 300x300 pixels and that was deemed acceptable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is though, video albums usually aren't square, so 300x300 can'y apply here. However, I find that that if you make the horizaontal edge 220px (the smallest you can go and still be reasonable), the the vertical won't be *too* much over 300px.Jasper420 04:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That's what I usually do. You don't want to go smaller than 220px on any one side, because that's the default thumbnail size. I usually resize to 220px horizontally and let the vertical chips fall where they may. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Redundant tracking cats.

Let's merge Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of albums and Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover are redundant. The former is populated by deliberately entering a field in {{album}} or {{reqphoto}}, but the latter is automatically populated by not filling in a field in {{Infobox Album}}. Since the latter is easy and automatic, it is much more full than the former and I can see no compelling reason for both. I propose that the fields requiring manual entry on talk pages be removed and the two categories be collapsed into the latter. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be acceptable as well, in order to reduce the redundancy. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 05:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I haven't looked at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of albums in a few months but it's pretty much been whittled down albums that are nearly impossible to find on the net. Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover is much more helpful. J04n(talk page) 09:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

They serve different purposes. Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover simply means no cover was added. That's the place to go for someone who looks for an easy task. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of albums is for cases where someone tried to find a cover but could not find one, i.e. a severe case, more for those looking for a challenge. I think they should both stay. --Muhandes (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wu-Tang Clan affiliated albums

Category:Wu-Tang Clan affiliated albums, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Album charts template

Hey! Ive been developing, together with Michael Jester (talk · contribs), a template similar to Template:Singlechart but for albums. As of now, the template is pretty complete, with 19 national charts plus 10 UK-related charts and 30 Billboard charts for a total 59 charts already included. So, i'd like to ask of the WP Albums would make use of the template on the charts sections of articles as a standard, just as is being done with its singles counterpart. Regards. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 00:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely We already have templates which generate charts, references, and categories for album certification: Wikipedia:MOSALBUM#Charts, so one for peak positions could be very handy. {{Albumchart}} could be a welcome addition. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate if its considered for inclusion. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 04:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Be bold! You can edit WP:MOSALBUM yourself. I wrote maybe 20% of it and I'm not actually a "member" of this project. Start inserting the template into articles, tinker with the functionality, change the Manual of Style--it's a wiki. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow thanks! Ok, i'll be editing WP:MOSALBUM to include the template. Thanks Koavf XD --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 05:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Rolling Stone 500 Greatest online citations

Rolling Stone has updated the online citations for its 500 Greatest Albums to its 2012 revision. This means url links to those citations now show the 2012 placement even though the text refers to the original 2003 placement. -- J. Wong (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Record label navbox

I have a dispute with a rotating anonymous IP regarding {{Anticon}}, which raises a general problem. The discussion itself is at Template Talk:Anticon. The IP maintains that the label's navigation box should be added to all albums by all artists who are related to the label. I think that:

For albums that are not by the label such as Summer (Subtle EP) and ExitingARM it is 100% clear that the label's navbox should not be added.
Even for albums which are by the label, I think a navigation box for the label is inappropriate. Such nav boxes are for articles about artists on the label's roster (past and present), not for the albums. I actually think we already had this discussion before, but can't find it.

Any general thoughts on the subject? Or on the specific case? --Muhandes (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. While there is certainly a commonality between the albums (all having been released by the same label), a navbox based on this characteristic does not seem to be a very useful tool for encyclopedia readers, especially if the albums are not included in the box. Listing topics by a characteristic such as shared label seems a function better suited to categories than navboxes. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Never seen a Record label template before and have serious doubts about their usefulness on Wikipedia - must try creating one for Universal Music Group! And as ever the creators of many of the templates seem to have forgotten that they are navboxes - I mean look at this one Template:Natalac Records, utterly pointless. I have also pruned Template:Anticon and await the imminent revert. memphisto 16:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

see Template:Definitive Jux Records and Template:Rhymesayers. theyre not the major labels such as universal, polygram, and bmg. the navboxes are useful when youre interested in indie hip hop.

i understand memphisto has serious doubts about their usefulness on Wikipedia because he has never seen a record label templates before. but keep in mind that theyre useful for other peoples who are interested in indie hip hop. 114.164.142.128 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

also, Template:R. Kelly singles has non-links. i hope memphisto understand A navbox exists NOT ONLY to navigate between existing articles. 114.164.142.128 (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the navbox should be solely for artists on the label, not every album. In general, navobxes shouldn't be in articles that aren't listed in the navbox itself; that's just confusing, especially to Wikipedia newcomers. And putting every album on the label into the navbox would make the navbox excessively huge and unhelpful. Most importantly, there's no sense in using the navbox for this when we have Categories to serve the same function without creating useless clutter in the articles.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, while discussion is ongoing, and the solidifying consensus seems to be that label navigation boxes should not include or be transcluded by album articles, the anonymous has re-inserted the label template to all the album articles again. I do not wish to edit war, but this seems to be against consensus. --Muhandes (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This user is still attempting to add/restore this template and the related category to assorted articles, including to Genghis Tron. Do we have a consensus here? Should this navbox and/or category exist and be included in articles? Neither (but especially the navbox) seem to be all that useful. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is clear. The articles were semi-protected as the IP would not listen to consensus. --Muhandes (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Worldwide album certification categories

I just came across J.Lo (album), which has 19 separate categories for different countries' album certifications, which seems excessive to me. These are primarily for countries that are not important markets for English (or Spanish)-language albums, nor are they important if their sales figures are compared on a worldwide scale, particularly since some of these seem to have rather low bars for certification. For example, Argentine Chamber of Phonograms and Videograms Producers requires only 20,000 units sold for Gold certification, Musiikkituottajat – IFPI Finland only 10,000; by contrast, the Recording Industry Association of America requires 500,000 for Gold cert. So per WP:OCAT, should these be culled down to the most significant ones (or entirely) and otherwise converted to lists, should the categories be all kept but only applied to artists from those countries or otherwise significantly associated with those markets (which would be difficult if not impossible to maintain in practice), or should these categories all be kept as is and I am just an American exhibiting systemic WP:BIAS? Honest question. Notice of this thread also posted at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. postdlf (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, i think the same, but just for stylistic reasons. Notwithstanding, i don't think the might be cut down from the article... --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion For what it's worth, this has come up at WP:CFD two or three times and the categories have been maintained. A handful of albums will chart across the world and so will end up with a dozen-plus of these, but I still think they're easily navigable. If you want to propose that category structure for deletion or discussion, please feel free, but I'd recommend you search past CfDs first (I can help you if you need.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The latest CFD for this is here and was closed as "no consensus". In my opinion this is a clear matter of WP:BIAS. As I stated before, I created the category hierarchy mostly to avoid the very clear bias we had before, and in my opinion we either delete them all, or keep them all. --Muhandes (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

But what is your response to the observation that not all certifications are created equal? Is it really necessary to treat a country's 10,000 unit certification on equal grounds with another's 500,000 unit certification to avoid bias? Those numbers alone could provide an objective basis for categorizing some but not others. And can you think of a way to limit these to only the country of origin, so we're not categorizing every album article by every country in which it received any certification? postdlf (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The point of categories is to ease browsing, in this case browsing albums which sold well in a specific country. By saying "lets not categorize for Finland" you are saying "it is not interesting to see which albums sold well in Finland". That's the essence of WP:BIAS in my opinion. As for your suggestion to limit just to the country of origin, again, I refer to the purpose of the category. By excluding albums by artists from another state, we are not facilitating browsing of albums that sold well. --Muhandes (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying "it is not interesting to see which albums sold only 10,000 units," regardless of which country we're talking about. Response? postdlf (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I already responded, but I'll clarify. 10,000 in Finland is a large number, which is evident by the fact that the certification authority in Finland grants Gold certification for it. A person interested in sales of albums in Finland will be interested in this album, just as much as a person interested in sales of album in the US will be in an album that sold 500,000. Therefore having one without the other is biased. --Muhandes (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

While the CFD was closed as "no consensus", there seemed to be consensus that the categorization scheme should be discussed further or better defined, so thank you postdlf to taking the initiative. As the nominator of the CFD, I still believe they should all be deleted. There are many more articles like J.Lo (album) that have been categorized in just as many of these certification categories and, if every album article was categorized appropriately, hundreds more would be cluttered by these. Whatever, if anything, is decided, the same should be applied to the singles categories. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I've always thought that these would work better as lists. Categorizing every album by every country's separate certification system is pedantic, in my view. I could understand keeping the most notable of the certification systems in categories for the same reason that we have categories for Academy Awards but not necessarily for every other film award. I'm not so sure doing so is necessarily a matter of bias. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Review sites: concerning the prominence of particular websites without established credentials

I have noticed a peculiar trend concerning reviews on album pages. There are multiple potential single-purpose accounts putting reviews from particular sites on these album pages. Several individuals have gone on Wikipedia adding possibly their own websites' reviews to such pages; the pages that are especially affected are pages concerning recent releases from 2011/2012 and pages for upcoming albums. With this type of practice, there are concerns about conflict of interest (especially), self promotion, review guidelines, and the aforementioned single-purpose account practices. This is a concern of mine because review websites need to be established as notable and worthy before being posted on Wikipedia, in order to maintain this website's integrity. An example of a page heavily affected by this practice is Storm Corrosion (album) (history). Some of the websites that are being constantly linked from Wikipedia are not listed in the professional review sources area Can I have some further opinions on this please? I wouldn't bring this up here if only one or two people were doing it, but I have noticed a significant amount of people doing this. If the REVSITE guidelines exist, then they have to be administered and not just "existing". I hope the best possible results can come from this discussion. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 01:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This behaviour qualifies as spamming, which is when editors are "adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced." I usually tag editors who are clearly adding reviews from a single source with either {{Welcomespam}} or {{Uw-spam1}}. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Usually I just tell the user that the site is not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, and in the meantime, revert them with an edit summary saying the site is unreliable. Sometimes they complain that they "are too reliable", but after instructions to read WP:RS and WP:ALBUM/REVSIT and the like, they generally get the point. There's not much more than that you can do, other than requesting page protection or user blocking if absolutely necessary. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything much more we can do, other than continue to be vigilant. There will always be new editors coming along who don't know anything about policy and will want to promote their own stuff. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue. In your specific example, one of the editors who has been industriously adding these links claims to be the owner of the site. I've joined several other editors in giving warnings and starting to repair the damage. If you are aware of similar sites being added in this fashion, please advise. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Similar issues arise in video game related articles as well. It's a problem, but with both video game or album related articles, I pretty much just do the same thing that MrMoustacheMM described above. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Would it maybe be beneficial to create a template similar to {{Uw-spam1}} or {{uw-genre1}} that specifically states adding unreliable review sites is frowned upon? Fezmar9 (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think creating something similar to those templates to address non-professional reviews would be a great idea. A template would spread awareness about the issue while making way for a fine format to address other users about this behavior. Afterwards, those warning templates can be added to the template messages index, alongside the others (that is, if it comes to fruition). Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 01:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Backtable, Thanks for bringing it up because obviously we should something about this and a very good example for an article. recently i'm a little busy to revolve around Wikipedia and protect pages from spamming but days ago i logged in and i saw this situation in Storm Corrosion (album) and i just did what MrMoustacheMM said. it's the best behavior and if they still continue we take an action like giving them warnings and if it still go we report them. and about that template for unreliable review... i don't think it's necessary. if we do something like that many websites want to put their links in it and it'd turn out as a big mess. just imagine. Reza ^(Let'sTalk) 21:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Report on the use of self-published sources

The first version of a report on the use of self-published sources is now available, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability. Some of the self-published sources listed in the report pertain to this project.

Suggestions on the report itself (a discussion has started here), and help in remedying the use of the self-published items that relate to this project will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Quote block

I can't say whether this is relegated strictly to articles pertaining to albums, but I've noticed numerous cases in which a quote block overflows into the infobox. 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) (bottom of the page) is just the latest example I've seen, with perhaps a dozen or two others in the past few weeks. Anyone have a clue?Jasper420 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's weird. In that article I'm also seeing text (including text not in block quotes) overlapping the Rhythm Composer image and the sound sample box. The bottom of the album ratings template also appears cut off. I'm using Google Chrome with a widescreen monitor, if that makes any difference. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I see the same on a 17 inch widescreen on Chrome as well. The review template appears fine to me though, but the quote block overlaps the image of a...thingamajig..in the Background and recording section. I've been seeing similar issues fairly often in recent weeks, but I can't recall any specific articles at the moment, but I'm pretty sure they were all albums articles. Although that could just be because that's my main focus.Jasper420 06:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed it: The article was using pull quotes rather than block quotations for long blocks of quoted text, which isn't proper. Also {{Cquote}} seems to behave wonky if used inline; whoever used that template put it in the same line as the preceding text rather than putting it on its own line, which may have contributed to the bleed-over. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, how that article got to FA with pull quotes used for block quotes, inline samples used in addition (and redundantly) to a sample box, and the line "Anybody who actually returned the album got rather a raw deal" down near the bottom is beyond me. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems to have worked. But, like I said, I've been seeing this rather frequently as of late. I don't recall it ever having been a problem prior to, oh, say May. And as to its FA status, I wouldn't have a clue. It was featured in 2006, so I guess in the intervening time period less helpful contributors have, er, contributed. Also, the section the quote you mentioned appears in looks like it was jammed in by an article merge at some point.Jasper420 06:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, if you see it in other articles, check to see if {{Cquote}} is being used. (A) It's probably being used improperly, and (B) it may be a flaw in the template that needs to be fixed. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Will do. With 1,500 articles on my watchlist, virtually all of them dealing with albums, it's bound to show up again somewhere.Jasper420 06:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've run into about 6-7 of these over the past month or so, all of them because of {{Cquote}}, all were fixed by removing the 'C'. J04n(talk page) 08:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's because {{Cquote}} is for pull quotes and {{Quote}} is for block quotations. Editors not knowing the difference between the two often causes problems. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I did a quick search and found that "raw deal" line has been in the article since September 2006, before it came under review for FA status. I think it's simply that standards for FAs were much lower back then. That line is hilarious, though; did the editor really think that everyone who bought those records back in 1987 held onto them for 13 years (as opposed to selling them, throwing them away, passing them on to friends or relatives, etc.) and kept them in mint condition all that time?

Thanks for mentioning {{Quote}}; I wasn't aware of that template and had been using the html "blockquote" for enclosing block quotes.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I use the html for blockquotes too, since it's conveniently found in the "Wiki markup" menu. As far as I can tell it makes no difference: {{Quote}} and <blockquote></blockquote> behave exactly the same. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the look of Template:Quote box myself. J04n(talk page) 17:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationales on Album covers

Any chance of concentrated drive to finally break the back on a persistent backlog?

http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?categories=Album+covers&ns%5B6%5D=1&templates_no=Non-free+use+rationale+album+cover%0D%0Aalbum+cover+fur%0D%0ANon-free+use+rationale%0D%0ANon-free+use+rationale+2%0D%0ANon-free+image+rationale%0D%0Ahas-NFUR&sortby=size&doit=1

It's sorted by size because the longer the page, the more likely it has an FUR that's not being picked up by automated tools. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions for future albums

Is there a standard? Recently I've come across One Direction's second album and TBA (2012 Grizzly Bear album). Should the latter be moved to resemble the former? Thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

...Hammer time! --IllaZilla (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters, since both will eventually be moved to their correct titles. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't just wait for an eventuality. The One Direction album looks to have plenty of significant source coverage, but the Grizzly Bear one doesn't. Sometimes it's just too soon to start an article. That aside, "TBA" is totally unprofessional/unencyclopedic; It should be moved to a less ridiculous title such as Grizzly Bear's fourth studio album or somesuch. Anything that gets rid of that awful "TBA". --IllaZilla (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars has moved it to Untitled Grizzly Bear album. For what it's worth I think the refs in the article are enough for WP:GNG; and, since we have a tracklisting, WP:HAMMER technically isn't applicable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If all that can be verified is a track listing & release date, it's still too soon. After all, that's stuff you could verify just from the album itself if it were out, and wouldn't be enough to pass GNG. Anyway, notability is a separate issue here, since your original question was about titling and it seems to have been solved. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What I didn't know, and find quite interesting, is that the project has an entire class devoted to unreleased albums. Check here for a full listing, and see that quite a few are untitled. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Studio or compilation?

While creating the new Van Morrison article for his soon to be released latest, I find that the official website calls it his 35th - see para. 2 - while I count it as his 34th. I think the difference in this must be with this album: Track listing for The Philosopher's Stone which perhaps they consider a studio album but in WP's definition, I believe it would fall under Compilation album. Am I correct or should I change it to go along with their count, which will probably be picked up by the reliable sources writing on this album. Agadant (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

To try to be more to the point: Is The Philosopher's Stone (compiled from studio recorded outtakes spanning years) a Compilation album or a Studio album? I think sources have already picked up the number as his 34th album from his discography article. ex: New Album. - There are many more with this number in opposition to his official website count and I had not started the Born to Sing article yet. If I am wrong (as I have been the editor to number and classify the albums), I would like to get it corrected right away. If this is not the proper talk page to have help with this question, will someone please direct me elsewhere? Agadant (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! First, what is a studio album? Well, you can say that a studio album is a collection of songs recorded with the goal to be all included on the same disc. They can or can't be made of the same theme, or have different composition histories, but they're all made form the same period with the same intention. A compilation album is a collection of unrelated songs which only main junction is the artist who performs them, and that doesn't even happen very often, as compilation albums may include different artists. As I see on that article, songs spans from 1969 to 1988, which is about 20 years. Studio albums are commonly produced within 1-5 years. 20 years is too much, so i think this can be called a compilation instead of a studio album. I hope this helped you out. Cheers! —Hahc 21 21:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly what I needed to know and thank you. I didn't want to be a source of putting up incorrect information for reliable sources to then copy. Agadant (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting/merging albums with band articles

Is there a standard procedure for this? I've been trying to clean up a ton of unsourced articles, and for a lot of albums, I am redirecting, but merging the tracklist into the main band article. Is this necessary, or can I just redirect and skip the tracklist? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't give you the word on standard procedure, but when merging album articles into an article on a one-album band, I always merge all verifiable content, including the infobox. For bands with more than one album, though, I think including all the track listings gives the article too much of a discography feel, and if you're only merging some of their album articles then it looks pretty arbitrary.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if an original studio album is not itself independently notable, if it was produced by a notable artist, then I believe that WP readers are best served if at least a bare minimum of info about the album (such as title, year, capsule summary, track listing) is available in the artist's article, or their discography article. If you discard such track listings, then you would be doing readers a disservice, so I am glad that you did not. Looking at Return to the Fire#Discography, where you've inserted a couple of track listings after redirecting, I see that, at 18.5kB, the entire article is still well under WP:SIZERULE's rule of thumb for needing to be split. I can't say that I'm in love with the formatting--the expanding sections are a bit hard on the eyes and it's not visually clear whether they refer to the album above or below--but that's an argument for improving the formatting, or for leaving the album article in place, not for deleting content. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I guess I'll just keep doing what I'm doing. I'm not super enthused about the layout right now either; I'll see if I can find a better way to do it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Intent to remove Artistdirect from the list of reliable sources

The background (from what I can make out):

Artistdirect was added to the list of review sources by a SPA IP editor here, as their very first edit ever, with no preliminary discussion or even an edit summary. They were admonished for spamming after adding an Artistdirect link to another page and were never heard from again.
Leaving aside their mirrored Allmusic content, which has been addressed, their own reviews seem to be...what? Advertorial content for artists and labels with whom they have a business relationship? Can somewhat indicate reasons for thinking otherwise?
A recently closed discussion on WP:RSN came down on the "not RS" side of the fence.

Considering the above, if it were a recent addition, I'd have just removed it without batting an eye. However, as it has been listed here for several years, I'd prefer to give other editors a chance to argue in favor of keeping it, or supporting removal, before taking action. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think at best it's a primary source, possibly suitable for referencing "Artist foo released the album via Artistsdirect." But even on that basis, I don't think it warrants mention in a list of reliable sources. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm only somewhat familiar with Artistdirect. Do you have any supporting evidence for your second bullet point of the site publishing advertorial content for artists and labels with whom they have a business relationship? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Posting from discussion on Allmusic talk page: Here is what I found on Google.

1. Definitely a major company, but that doesn't make it reliable.

2. It seems to have very good news content and centralized information: [8], [9], [10], [11].

3. Not much info on reviews, other than that the company offers them.--¿3family6 _contribs 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional note: If all reviews are for advertising, they would all be favorable. But that isn't the case here. A look at their recent reviews list shows them all over the place, as would be expected for any review site. Interestingly enough, the last review the site did seems to be three years ago.--¿3family6 _contribs 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Further note: So far, the only reliable source referencing a artistdirect review is this one.--¿3family6 _contribs 03:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Milestone

hello,

I had the idea to suggest a goal for this project: all articles which were ranked on Rolling Stones' 500 Greatest Albums of All Time should reach at least GA. I think it would be a fun idea; what do you all think? Regards.--GoP _T ^C _N 20:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have the magazine too, is really cool. The idea is good, there are 82 FA in this project if we want to get those 500 we need to get a taskforce. See this not as a milestone but as a "mission objective" of the project. Zidane tribal (talk)

Great, thanks. It would be good to see more activity so we could decide whether it is a good idea. Regards.--GoP _T ^C _N 17:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I created a "Goal" section. Feel free to modify it and add similar goals. Regards--GoP _T ^C _N 10:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Marco Sartorio

Could someone take a look at Marco Sartorio (talk · contribs). He creates massively album articles, which are completely (or poorly) sourced. Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of This Time Next Year

Comments would be appreciated at Talk:This Time Next Year#Requested move, which concerns the move of the album This Time Next Year by The Movielife. It's quite an old request (relisted twice), and additional participation would be quite helpful in reaching a decision. Thanks, France3470 (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Metal Forces

Should we add Metal Forces to the list of professional review sites? The magazine has its own Wikipedia page. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Metal Critic

Can we add The Metal Critic to a list of non-professional reviews? The site just appears to be a fan site with self-published content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The website does not have notability established, so I would not mind if that happened. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad you agree. I've just seen it been posted more and more on metal album articles. Needs a clean up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Notability isn't the issue here, reliability is. I agree with the above, but I wanted to make that clarification.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Whups. You are very right 3family6. That's what I meant. ANyways, it's been a few days with no disagreement so I'll add it to the list of non-reliable review sites. Thanks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Drowned in Sound

The Drowned in Sound site appears to be user reviews without any editorial oversite. It does not appear to meet the general requirements of 'professional reivews'. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the site was staff-written until around 2008. Reviews are still posted by staff, paid contributors and now there are user reviews in beta. User-submitted reviews are never reliable sources, but reviews submitted by staff are, just like on several other sites from which we take reviews. --Michig (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Rock Sins

Just questioning the notability of the site Rock Sins. Their About Us section doesn't indicate that they are a formal business or the professional level of their staff and it's just a site powered by Wordpress currently. How should this be included on our list of notable or non-notable review sites? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

ReGen Magazine

This site is used as a source of critical reviews and interviews for lots of industrial music articles. I had always assumed it was okay, but now I'm not so sure. I'd like to get some discussion and consensus on it here so it can be added to one of the two lists. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not completely obvious with this one, but I'd lean towards no. They seem to just accept articles through submission (not sure how much fact checkin or standards they keep). A sample review here seems to be written by someone who refers to themselves as "Ilker Yücel (Ilker81x)". I don't think adding message-boardesque sounding names really boosts this sites potential for reliability. I'd welcome other views on this idea though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

According to this link, he's actually the Editor-in-Chief. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahh. Good find. I'm still not sure about the site though. You could try and contact them and see if they do things like have people submit reviews or other information. That would find their own reliability. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DiscogAlbumEntry

Template:DiscogAlbumEntry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

GAN Backlog

hello,

there is huge backlog at WP:GAN. Please help clearing it. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox information - albums of stage musicals

The following is a recent exchange on the subject of the list of options under "type" in the album infobox. Are we being a bit unnecessary here? should another "type" option be added??

My Fair Lady (Broadway cast recording) - NOT a (movie) soundtrack

I saw your reversion on my "soundtrack" edit. The album infobox only allows 12 words in the type field, one of which is "soundtrack." If you don't use one of those 12 words, the system puts the article into Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes, where an editor like me will change it to one of those 12 words. So if not "soundtrack," which of those words do you think applies to an original cast recording? Soundtrack seems the closest to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

One more note: Nearly every album in Category:Cast recordings uses the "soundtrack" designation.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Soundtrack" refers to the sound recording part of a motion picture. Originally it was physically part of a print of the film, read optically by the projector - I assume these things are all digital nowadays. This is not a motion picture, although one was made of the same show. If we don't want to preserve this distinction, I suppose I have no leg to stand on. BUT why can't we just add a "Cast Album" designation to the list - or even use "unknown" or leave it blank? This is an encyclopedia, not a database system, and it seems ridiculous to insert inaccurate or approximate information (as we do sometimes in databases) just in order to "fill a field". If we want to group soundtrack albums and cast albums, then why can't we change "soundtrack" to something like "soundtrack and cast albums"? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a very reasonable position. It sounds like we should bring it up on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums. "Cast" would seem a welcome option, but I can't unilaterally make that decision (nor would I know how to code it). For now, I'm going to make it the unassailable "Studio album" with a Longtype of "Original cast album," since it needs one of the field's parameters for it to stop reporting an error.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Would it help to change similar articles (those specifically about particular recordings of particular stage shows) to match, pending a difinitive decision? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: Soundofmusicals has started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox album#adding "cast" to the list of choices. To avoid having the same discussion in 2 places, please make replies there. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

GAR

Straight Outta Compton, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I will try to improve this article as it is one of the 500's. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 18:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Blank tracks

Dustin Lynch (album) has a blank "track 13" between tracks 12 ("Name on It") and 14 ("Your Plan"). I've seen a few other albums that do phantom Track 13s to keep the album from literally having 13 tracks (another example being Double Live (Garth Brooks album)). What would be the proper way to list these phantom Track 13s in the tracklist? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion How about something like:

"Song" – 3:48
[Blank track] – 0:03
"Composition" – 4:19

Etc.? Dave Matthews Band also did this for numbering tracks to a song. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the usual procedure to leave the track name blank, so it comes up as Untitled? So it would be:

No.	Title	Length
12.	"Name on It"	3:45
13.	Untitled	0:03
14.	"Your Plan"	4:56

And if using a regular list, you'd just physically type the word Untitled. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Calling it untitled implies that there is a song with no name. Calling it a blank track gives more information to the reader. -Freekee (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Direct links to external purchase sites

What's the policy on direct links out to external sites that offer albums or bonus tracks for sale? I noticed it at Sticks + Stones (album), to which several such links have been added recently. It seems to me that it's not for Wikipedia to direct users to places where they can purchase music - "Wikipedia is not a directory - not to mention there were not one, but several such links; but at the same time the links may be the only source for the arguably encyclopedic fact asserted, such as, "X is a track that can only be found on iTunes". (I sort of wonder what an "album" is any more if you get a different version of it depending on where you purchase it, but that's another issue I suppose.) I removed a series of such links once, but they were restored, and am now asking what consensus is on them. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Linking Album articles are just as subject to WP:EL and WP:SPAM as anything else—the insertion of links to sites (such as Amazon) which exist solely to sell an album are almost always inappropriate. A site set up specifically by the artist or record label for an album can be linked in external links with {{Official}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Is this a widespread issue? I've found a couple of IP addresses that are adding such links all over the place and can't escape the sense that they're just the tip of the iceberg - JohnInDC (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "X is a track that can only be found on iTunes," this assertion must be backed up by a reputable source. You've got to find one that says this. You can't prove it by linking to every website, in hopes that the WP reader will reach this conclusion on his own. And you can't even take iTunes's own word for it. In short, these sites are not reputable sources, and don't provide any real value to the reader. -Freekee (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Georgiy Starostin

I've noticed some editors adding Georgiy Starostin as a reviewer in the ratings template, but is he considered a professional review source? According to his article, he is a linguistics professor or something. His site says that his reviews are also published on this blogspot and he only reviews select rock music. Dan56 (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question. It's a pretty remarkable site, really thoughtful and comprehensive, and I've gone back to it time and again over the years. If it were up to me I wouldn't hesitate to cite it, 3d party references establishing it be damned! (I wasn't able to find much in the way of mainline citations to it in a quick Google search.) I guess my only point is that, the refs to his site may not be obviously in keeping with RS requirements, but the references being added in WP articles are anything but facetious and I bet with a bit of looking one could make a pretty good case for it being an RS. JohnInDC (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Not reliability, but credentials, whether it's professional or just at the level of a blogger; he has one profession or field he's got credentials for, but the music criticism seems like a hobby? That's my question. BTW, what "facetious" references? Dan56 (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites, the review source must be from an "editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)", and his site seems to ammount to that, especially if the site he publishes the reviews for is a blogspot, in this case only-solitaire.blogspot.com. He clearly has an article at Wikipedia for being someone notable, not anything in music, but a Russian linguistic researcher who reviews old American rock music recreationaly. Anything odd about this? Dan56 (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, by "facetious" I meant, kind of knowingly citing a non-reputable or amateurish source. He *is* an amateur, in that he's not paid, and it's just a blog, so he'd be pretty easy to disparage measured by those metrics. All I meant was, I think that people who read his stuff come away impressed with his knowledge and insight and so people who cite him do so in good faith (even if he isn't or hasn't been estabished as as RS). JohnInDC (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(More broadly it's no odder than Charles Ives being both a prominent insurance salesman and - for practical purposes - hobbyist composer most of his years!) JohnInDC (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I personally see nothing wrong with the reviews per say, but if we are using him as a source, we'd need it as something not self-published. I'd use it only on articles where information is scarce. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

In general self-published opinion on a topic is not acceptable as a reliable source UNLESS the person is notable in that topic - see WP:USERGENERATED. We need to assess if reliable sources have either used or commented on the blog, or have commented on the person as an expert on the topic. As Dan56 has pointed out, we know that Starostin is notable for linguistics, but - as yet - we don't know if he is notable for music reviewing. If there are reliable sources which give either Starostin or his blog notability for the music reviews, then he can be used, otherwise his comments are not valid. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As it is a blog, searching for reliable sources on Google is difficult as bloggers tend to reference each other, so you get swamped by other blogs. However, looking in GoogleBooks turned up Speak to Me: The Legacy of Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon, and Song Sheets to Software A Guide to Print Music, Software, and Web Sites for Musicians. Not quite conclusive, but as I found them quite quickly I assume that other sources could be found as well. I would incline on that evidence toward allowing the use of the content of his reviews. As regards using them in a ratings template - I had thought the idea was that we were depreciating the ratings template in favour of a proper review section written in prose. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the idea, but it hasn't been properly conveyed to people. In any case, there's a lot of reviewers you could cite before Starostin. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that when writing up a review section on, say, the Beatles' White Album, that there would be plenty of notable and influential reviewers that one would use, and that using such a minor reviewer would be inappropriate; however, I could see some value in using a minor reviewer for albums that don't have many reviews. I think it comes down to making a case by case decision, and using some common sense. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Even with a really notable album, I think we need to move more away from citing critics one by one and focusing on the greater critical consensus. Forest from the trees and all that. For example, citing contemporary reviews (even from the most notable voices in the music and mainstream press) does little to tell you the whole crazy story behind the critical consensus of Be Here Now (album). And that's why that article doesn't do that. In the case of that album, we don't have to in the first place, because at least two thorough sources summarize critical consensus for us, and by citing those authors we can get the information across extremely concisely and much more effectively. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A lack of notable reviews speaks to the relative notability of the album in the first place, that is, perhaps it should not have an article at all.

And I agree with WesleyDodds, we shouldn't be citing reviews one by one. For myself, I try to cite a review and quote that represent the consensus view of the work.

-- J. Wong (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Help?

I've been trying to get the title of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1 (soundtrack) italicized (The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1 (soundtrack)) but I've not had luck. The article says that Template:Italic title is in use, and I tried Template:DISPLAYTITLE and it wouldn't change it either. A little help? thanx. NYSMtalk page 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm. I messed around with it a little and had no success. I'm thinking the length of the title combined with the "(soundtrack)" bracketed part and possibly the colon and/or n-dash is causing the problem. Take a look at Template talk:Italic title, maybe ask there, and take a look in the archives too. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I can get it to work with this fine. Hm. I'll ask there. NYSMtalk page 22:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

All set you needed to do this:{{DISPLAYTITLE:''The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1'' (soundtrack)}} after the second infobox. J04n(talk page) 00:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Aha! I was trying after the album infobox; didn't consider the track listings. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! NYSMtalk page 00:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Favorable/Unfavorable in Template:Album ratings

I've started a discussion on whether we should continue summarizing reviews as "favorable/unfavorable" in {{Album ratings}}. Input is welcome at Template talk:Album ratings#Favorable/Unfavorable. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

another blogger thinks he's a professional reviewer

Special:Contributions/GeraldBourguet is too long of a list for me to deal with. I've warned him to stop. Could we have a project member remove these please? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the ones done up to earlier as well. If someone could watch to see that the editor doesn't add his blog back in. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Billboard Year-End number-one singles and albums sources needed

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#List_of_Billboard_Year-End_number-one_singles_and_albums if you can help source List of Billboard Year-End number-one singles and albums.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Getting Diamond in the Rock approved as a professional review source

Hi, my name is Gerald Bourguet and I operate the current Wordpress blog Diamond in the Rock. I recently added my blog's reviews to numerous album pages as a professional review source and stopped adding them after I was told it did not qualify as a professional source. However, I'd like to argue the validity of my blog on the grounds that it will soon be expanded into a fully fledged website as part of graduate coursework for the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University. I will be graduating in May with a combined Bachelor's and Master's degree in print journalism in just four years, I have done extensive research on the history of rock and its criticism (including a 33-page literature review on the subject), and this blog is more than just a personal blog expressing my own opinions. Its validity is based not on my opinion of my own writing or desire to get more exposure, but on the extensive research I've already accomplished, the fact that it will be expanding to a legitimate website within the next 60 days and based on the amount of content I've already published.

I would like to add that as soon as I was informed that my blog did not qualify as a professional source, I stopped posting it to the various albums I've reviewed. I apologize if it seemed as though I was continuing to add my blog out of spite or resentment. This is not the case and I stopped as soon as I was informed. I also would like to apologize adding my blog as a reference on pages that already had 10 or more reviews; I must have skimmed over that rule and did not realize I was committing a fault.

I would just like to discuss whether or not my work will be accepted as a professional source once the website is built or whether it's possible for my blog to be added based on the fact that it is graduate thesis coursework for a prestigious journalism university. If none of these scenarios qualifies my work as a professional source, I would like to discuss what exactly constitutes "professional." Finally, if I have to wait until the blog becomes a website because the blog appears unprofessional I'd like to discuss what I can do to change its appearance or information so that it is satisfactory for citing.

Thank you,

Gerald Bourguet — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeraldBourguet (talk • contribs) 19:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"Professional" means that someone is paying you to review material i.e. it's a person's job to review things. It has nothing to do with the quality of writing and whether it looks "professional", or indeed whether the person writing it has their own website, or has written 33 pages about rock music. 130.88.141.34 (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not accurate, 130.88.141.34. We allow sites that have a paid or volunteer staff. Gerald, you can find some explanation of what sites we do & don't consider reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites: "Specifically, reviews should be written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs), and must be from a source that is independent of the artist, record company, etc." We're looking for sites that meet the criteria described at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception. As you probably know, there are hundreds of websites out there that offer album reviews, but most of them are not considered reliable or authoritative in the field. This is mainly because many of them are amateur, or haven't been operating long enough to have established a reputation for quality and authority within the field (we usually judge this by looking for mentions the site itself has received in other well-established sources). It sounds like your site fits this description: because it is a blog, self-published, a school project, and because you yourself do not yet appear to have established yourself as an authority within the field of music criticism, the site is not likely to meet our criteria. This is not meant to be discouraging; I wish you all success with your project, and hopefully down the line your site will make a name for itself in the field and evolve to the point of being a site we can include. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Review sources from aggregate sites

Since Metacritic, and to a lesser extent AnyDecentMusic?, seem like acceptable review sites, can a note be added to WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE that the reviews they use are acceptable here as well? Metacritic's list is pretty similar to the one at WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE, while ADM also uses UK, Australia, Germany, Ireland, and Canada review sources, along with some of Metacritic's more notable US sources ([12]), such as The Skinny (magazine), Loud and Quiet, State (magazine), and The Sunday Times/The Times. Dan56 (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I just created Re-Machined: A Tribute to Deep Purple's Machine Head if a project member needs to check it out, rate it whatever. Cheers. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 20:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Over Reliance on iTunes / Multiple Release Dates

Hi, in relation to the discussion above, can people please comment on the discussion over at Talk:Two Eleven#Release dates. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your project is being adopted by the WP:GOCE

Just wanted to drop a note here letting this project know that the GOCE will be running a "blitz" from October 21–27 to copy edit all tagged articles from this WikiProject. Drop by and take a look if you're interested in helping. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Categorizing albums by bands under each of its individual members

Does it make sense to categorize, for example, Category:Pearl Jam albums as Category:Eddie Vedder albums? If this is the case, shouldn't individual albums, such as 1984 (Van Halen album) be categorized as Category:David Lee Roth albums as well as Category:Van Halen albums and the same with 5150 (album) being categorized under Category:Sammy Hagar albums. Personally, I don't consider a Pearl Jam album as an Eddie Vedder album and don't think it should be categorized as such, but if that's going to be ok, individual albums should also be categorized by individual band members for those who were not part of band during its entire run. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that such categorization would make sense. If this type of categorization were to catch on, then every single main band member who participated in the creation of the album would have to be given a category for such a purpose. That sort of practice would lead to gratuitous confusion and overcategorizing. Therefore, I think that the albums made by Pearl Jam should continue to be categorized as Pearl Jam albums and the Eddie Vedder solo albums continue to be categorized as Eddie Vedder albums, and remain mutually exclusive as such. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Backtable, also there are a lot of band members who have participated in all the albums of a band and nothing else thus his their categories would be exactly the same that the band`s. Zidane tribal (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the parenthentical note should be removed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide because it is presenting conflicting information on how to categorize albums.

Note that albums are only categorized according the artist who is credited with the release. Consequently, Kind of Blue is categorized under Category:Miles Davis albums and not Category:John Coltrane albums, even though Coltrane is a sideman appearing on that recording. Similarly, Led Zeppelin II is categorized under Category:Led Zeppelin albums and not Category:Robert Plant albums as Plant was a member of Led Zeppelin at the time—the latter category is only for his solo work. (Note that it is appropriate to make Category:Led Zeppelin albums a subcategory of Category:Robert Plant albums, as Plant appears on all Led Zeppelin recordings, but it is not appropriate to categorize Category:Miles Davis albums under Category:John Coltrane albums as Davis had several dozen releases without Coltrane's involvement.)

Otherwise, it says it's not ok to categorize a band's album as an album by a band member but it is ok to categorize all the band's albums as albums by a band member. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the crossed-out information should be removed. Band member categories should not be involved with band categories. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitely agree with getting rid of that part. I was okay with it at first, but now that I think about it it can cause some real confusion in categorization. Mainly, if Musician A leaves Band X and they record another album, then Category:Band X albums has to be taken out of Category:Musician A albums, which is an easy task to overlook, especially if that band and musician remain inextricably associated with each other in the general public's mind (e.g. Yes and Jon Anderson). And I can't think of any real need for band albums to be categorized that way.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that Star... is right. I would like to suggest liberally using {{Seealsocat}} for interlinking categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Backtable et al. This is the band's album not his solo album, hence a removal of the category would be correct. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

~~FWIW, the problem is spreading to songs Category:Denny Laine songs has been created with a sole entry of Mull of Kintyre, which is a Wings song. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)~~ Actually not a new problem. I have removed the sole entry of Mull of Kintyre. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to the use of {{seealsocat}} in the category pages. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Template Please use it, though--if you remove the categories (which seems advisable and is clearly the consensus), then keep the navigational structure by way of {{Seealsocat}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)