Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 1

message: As you may have noticed, I'm fascinated by the chronology of music (and indeed of other things). So I've started a bit of a side project. See 1972 in music. On it I've basically just got a handful of the albums released that year, plus a little write up about Harvest. If this grows into other years and people include some specific innovations, it could develop into something pretty groovy. When does the first mention of punk come up, for example. I took the liberty of redirecting the 1972 link on the Ziggy Stardust article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubby (talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 December 2002 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year in music articles 

message: I'd suggest aligning the table holding the album cover to the RIGHT, rather than the left. Left alignment is unusual, feels rather unnatural to me, and results in varying results across browsers which are all rather ugly. Mozilla and derivitives render as shown in http://www.runawaynet.com/~nknight/crushold.jpg (problem area highlighted to better show the details, like text on the image). Konqueror shifts all text as far as the end of the track listing on the Crush page to the right, which is equally ugly and disturbs the flow of the page significantly. Aligning to right results in http://www.runawaynet.com/~nknight/crushnew.jpg, which I think is far more attractive and natural, individual browser glitches aside. -- nknight 13:20 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
:Fine with me. I just arbitrarily picked a side. If right looks better, let's go with right. --Tuf-Kat 17:55, 10 March 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table alignment 

message: Is does not appear to be a set image size for the album covers. If there is what is it? - fonzy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonzy (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 March 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I get most of mine from allmusic.com, though I don't think there should be a set size. Some are real detailed and maybe should be bigger so the reader can get an idea for what's there (Sgt. Peppers) and some could be smaller and less intrusive because there's less to see (The White Album) or whatever. Tuf-Kat 20:14, 15 March 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, What do we do if there is more than 1 album cover for the same version of the album? -fonzy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonzy (talk • contribs) 10:45, 16 March 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason not to include them both. Abbey Road has a couple pix from the inside cover, for example. If it helps to establish a social, historical or artistic theme relating to the album, it should be fair use, I think. (IANALAFVGR -- I am not a lawyer and for very good reason) --Tuf-Kat 17:04, 16 March 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size 

message: Hi,
can someone clarify the Fair use issue for me?
I just uploaded a page about Herbie Hancock's Head Hunters album, and within a few minutes someone (anonymous) had come along and removed both the Album cover art and the Tracklisting and the List of artists on the album. I'd have thought that all of these would be covered under fair use, and I'm tempted to just revert to the previous version of the page, but I don't really want to get into a war with the other guy.
If tracklistings and lists of personnel are really off limits, then the whole album project is stuffed, really.
Any thoughts?
PS A couple of images I uploaded for other albums just disappeared - for example Bitches Brew. The page for the image is still there - which proves the image was succesfully uploaded (and I could see it on the page for a day or so) but now that image is nowhere to be found. Has it been deleted (no record of this) or is this just a glitch?
PPS ( ! ) I like the idea of a table for the cover, but I don't think we need to put quite so much inro in it. Maybe just artist, year, label, genre, but leave the reviews and contributors to the body of the text?
Cheers Ben --Bwmodular 16:11, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The track listing and personnel list is not even fair use, as neither can be copyrighted provided there is no expressive content in the organization. A list of songs in the order they appear and a list of performers in alphabetical order (or any other basic order) is not copyrightable, and can be reproduced on the wiki without issue. The album cover issue has been discussed numerous times, and the general consensus has been that it is fair use and is not a problem for the wikipedia. I have reverted Head Hunters. --Tuf-Kat 17:21, 3 February 2004 (UTC)

text: On the reviews, I think that the contributors can go, but I like the reviews. The other info is something that a thousand other sites put in some easy to find place (and for good cause, we should follow suit) but there is usually a dearth of genuinely useful information beyond those facts and a track listing. This is a way we can make Wikipedia stand out, by providing links to and summaries of professional reviews. The Abbey Road table is, indeed, a bit long, but the vast majority of albums will have fewer reviews than that and will be more like the same size as the Spears album. --Tuf-Kat 17:37, 3 February 2004 (UTC)

text: The disappearing album cover is probably a glitch and will be recovered. See the note at the top of the village pump. Tuf-Kat 17:44, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use of album covers 

message: What does everybody think about having a table for this series, perhaps something like (crappily cribbed from the taxobox/planetobox) the below. There seems to be a stray /table somewhere in there, but I dunno where. I had included a track listing, but decided that was too difficult and not very useful. I can't seem to make the top and bottom section ignore the fact that there is a third column in the middle one. --Tuf-Kat 06:49, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Centered images & slightly cleaned up your HTML. I'll be back to do more, but don't have time right now. --Jmabel 02:56, 3 February 2004 (UTC)

text: Making better use of colspan, and nailed some more element closure issues; not finished though, there's still apparently some stray markup, although I'm beginning to suspect a wiki bug. -- Jmabel 07:48, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Looks great! I'm now inclined to think that the "major contributors" bit should go, as it makes the whole thing too big, and I'd rather keep the reviews. --Tuf-Kat 07:54, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not put album LENGTH (min./sec.) in the table? --Juuitchan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.35.122 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, our comments are appearing in the Abbey Road table. Help! I'm trapped in a table, and I can't get out! Seriously, album lengths might be good. --Tuf-Kat 08:23, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Culprit found: missing </small> tags in the Reviews sections. I agree that the box should be shorter. Do you want me to try converting the tables to wiki-table-markup? —Paul A 09:11, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please do!. --Tuf-Kat 17:21, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Paul A 04:06, 4 February 2004 (UTC)

text: The problem was bad nesting in the first table (the Britney Spears CD). I've redone them both using exclusively COLSPAN instead of nested tables, and handled the float-to-right problem with a clearly marked outer table and DIV. Boy do we need proper wiki markup for these boxes, or what? --Zack 21:19, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, this now gives a lot more "grid lines" in the tables. I presumed that the reason for the nested tables was to get borders in some places and not others was precisely to avoid that, which is why I didn't change it when I made my edits earlier. (They don't look bad to me, I was just trying to help fulfil what I presumed to be Tuf-Kat's intent. This one-table approach should be less sensitive to minor coding glitches,though.) --Jmabel 04:55, 4 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I like it better this way too. I'd have done it that way if I knew how. --Tuf-Kat 07:13, 4 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Primo! BTW, feel free to call on me in the future if you need HTML help for wikipedia. --Jmabel 01:46, 5 February 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table for albums? 

message: I can't seem to touch the table without breaking things. All I did was try and delete the "major contributors" section, and now both tables, our comments and the wikilinks at the bottom are all part of one giganto-table. Isn't there a firm way to just end a table? (/table would seem logical, but there's a gaggle of those already). --Tuf-Kat 17:47, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was bad nesting in the first table (the Britney Spears CD). I've redone them both using exclusively COLSPAN instead of nested tables, and handled the float-to-right problem with a clearly marked outer table and DIV. Boy do we need proper wiki markup for these boxes, or what? --Zack 21:19, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, this now gives a lot more "grid lines" in the tables. I presumed that the reason for the nested tables was to get borders in some places and not others was precisely to avoid that, which is why I didn't change it when I made my edits earlier. (They don't look bad to me, I was just trying to help fulfil what I presumed to be Tuf-Kat's intent. This one-table approach should be less sensitive to minor coding glitches,though.) --Jmabel 04:55, 4 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I like it better this way too. I'd have done it that way if I knew how. --Tuf-Kat 07:13, 4 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Primo! BTW, feel free to call on me in the future if you need HTML help for wikipedia. --Jmabel 01:46, 5 February 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table issues 

message: A lot of Wikiprojects use different colors in the table to mean different things (for example, plants, animals and fungi all use different colors, but the same table). I'm not sure this really has any useful application to this project, but is worth considering. Dividing by genre might be nice, but would probably lead to arguments (fill in band name here is not punk enuff for the punk color!), and I'm not sure it's worth it. I've also thought about having different colors for notable bands (for example all Rolling Stone albums could be blue, with orange as the default) but this is probably even less useful. Maybe by decade of release... --Tuf-Kat 03:49, 5 February 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox table colors 

message: In the list of sources for professional reviews, can somebody find a homepage to link to for this site? http://www.acclaimedmusic.com doesn't work, and neither does http://hem.bredband.net. I can't seem to find any kind of main page or search function, and I need to go to bed. --Tuf-Kat 08:54, 6 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/, it turns out. —Paul A 09:06, 6 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Tuf-Kat 19:51, 6 February 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with one of the review sources 

message: After doing a couple more albumboxes (needs a better name...), I'm not sure including e.g. Rolling Stone List of 500 Greatest Albums of All Time is a good idea, even if it is an encyclopedic source. There's an awful lot of them, most are reproduced on non-official pages and could very well be mistaken or even totally fictional and... I hate them. --Tuf-Kat 19:51, 6 February 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists in the infobox 

message: Two issues:
Barring disagreement here, I am going to change the project to specifically disallow "100 Greatest Albums of All Time"-type lists, even if they are by a reputable source.
There has been little or no discussion anywhere on the wiki regarding the suitability of Greatest Hits or other compilations having their own albums. I am of the opinion that most should not, though Bob Marley's Legends, some box sets, that Pink Floyd greatest hits and probably some more could easily have an article. Discuss. --Tuf-Kat 23:43, 13 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that some "100 Greatest Albums" lists are encyclopedic topics in their own right. For example, the topic of what has come and gone from Rolling Stone 100-best lists over time could be a very good way of looking at changing tastes in music. Or is this not what you are talking about? --Jmabel 01:04, 14 February 2004 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't exclude an album simply because it wasn't the original issue of the material involved. For example, Nuggets, a multi-band complilation, is arguably one of the most influential albums of all times, certainly more influential than the individual songs collected therein. Similarly, some of Roky Erikson's "original issue" albums are rather weak, and have not matched the sales or impact of the collection "You're Gonna Miss Me". --Jmabel 01:04, 14 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not so sure that such a thing would be encyclopedic (it sounds like original research, but I suppose there's nothing wrong with collecting such lists on a single page -- except maybe a copyvio?), but that's not really what I'm talking about. I mean using such a list on the "reviews" section of the albumbox as at Back in Black. Many of the major music magazines have done dozens. Check out music.net, it's got sometimes dozens of chart placings for well-known albums -- I think that would clutter up the albumbox with notes regarding the subject's placement on obscure magazines' "100 Greatest Metal Albums of the 70s" list from years ago. --Tuf-Kat 09:13, 14 February 2004 (UTC)

text: Certainly, I support some compilations of various kinds having an article -- that's why I gave them a color for the albumbox. These albums are the exception, however, and many of the most famous bands have released dozens of greatest hits albums. Most could realistically never have any more information than a track listing, release date and label and I suppose, in some cases, chart information. There are some articles on bands that link to every greatest hits or compilation release ever to include the band's music. It seems highly unnecessary. Perhaps a single article with all the track listings and release dates and obscure info on compilations would be best. --Tuf-Kat 09:13, 14 February 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists and compilation albums 

message: Well, I don't think any album articles are quite ready yet, but I'm going to try and get something, maybe Aquemini, there soon. Any other thoughts? --Tuf-Kat 23:52, 18 February 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aquemini 

message: Just a q. What should be done for the Pink Floyd double album Ummagumma? It has 1 disk of live, and 1 disk of studio material. What should be done for the colours? --Fizscy46 01:46, 20 February 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose have the first and third boxes darkturquoise and the second and fourth boxes orange. --Tuf-Kat 06:33, 20 February 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ummagumma 

message: I think this is a very interesting project and I've devoted some thought to how it might be done myself. I don't think we should try to duplicate what is already done at other sites, and done well.
What I do think would be useful, and if done well could be really fantastic, is an examination of each album from a slightly broader perspective. In the examination of each album, how about a consideration of its specific influences, specific followers, where it fits in its genre and what leanings it may have toward others, etc? With regard to the Funkadelic albums, I'd much sooner go to allmusic.com for that information than to these wikipedia pages, but allmusic doesn't have the kind of musical matrix information that I think could be really exciting.
What do you think? --Arbitration Matter of Hephaestus 16:40, 14 March 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the above message was written by Tubby and is in the archive. Feel free to add information on whatever you like of encyclopedic interest. --Tuf-Kat 18:05, 14 March 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broader perspective 

message: I have created Template:Album to place at the top of talk pages for album articles. For those who don't know how to use the MediaWiki namespace, typing  will present the text at Template:Album. Feel free to revise the note, as I have no strong attachment to the wording. --Tuf-Kat 06:34, 22 March 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this should only be added to talk pages for those albums that actually have the Album infobox? By doing that, we can see the actual list of albums where the infobox has been applied by clicking the "What links here". --RedWolf 06:54, 22 March 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea, but could be difficult to enforce. (I've already placed it on several other talk pages, for example, with no infobox...) --Tuf-Kat 15:20, 22 March 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why just those with the infobox? Maybe someone else will want to add an infobox if it's not there. —LarryGilbert 20:25, 22 March 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the msg to a few albums that may not even be on your list of albums list - they are just linked to from the band. I have one concern about adding the infobox - it seems to require a fair use image, and it would be illegal for me to add that in the UK. If they are required than a US contributor will have to add them. I presume I should add the info box, and someone else can add the image. --Secretlondon 18:54, 25 March 2004 (UTC)

text: I've added the info box to Rammstein's albums - a US contributor will have to add a photo. --Secretlondon 20:08, 25 March 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, for all but Mutter. --Tuf-Kat 21:15, 25 March 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I've done the three albums by The Housemartins now (writing about albums is light relief from normal wikipedia stuff). Should I make a list of ones that need pictures somewhere? --Secretlondon 22:43, 25 March 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Needs cover? --Tuf-Kat 23:25, 25 March 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediaWiki Album 

message: *Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Needs cover
*Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums/Needs infobox
As there has been a suggestion that we list articles without infoboxes somewhere. --Secretlondon 20:31, 2 April 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Needy Articles

message: Why has the color orange been chosen for studio albums? About 90% of the album articles on Wikipedia are about studio albums, so it would be better to use a more standard color (like black). --Acegikmo1 23:03, 25 March 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What colour should we use for mix albums? They are more than compilations of exiting material. --Secretlondon 10:15, 27 March 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the same colour for other soundtracks as used for movie soundtracks. I didn't see the need to differentiate between stage production soundtracks and movies. --Secretlondon 19:04, 11 April 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors 

message: I noticed ScudLee has been going around fixing some of the existing album pages (thanks, by the way), and has let some people (including me) know that the Chronology section of the table is meant to be a back/forward section for albums rather than a listing of everything that the band has released. This wasn't clear from me from the main WikiProject Albums page and I was wondering if someone could add something in there to clarify this. Thanks! --Jrdioko 22:42, 12 April 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've given it a shot. This is only based on what I do, though. Feel free to add or amend as you see fit. --Lee (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Thanks! --Jrdioko 23:43, 12 April 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology Links 

message: I've just added all of the album covers for michael jackson that were on the missing images list and entered them onto the relevant album pages. I noticed that some of the colours are set as darkgreen for the Albumbox on these pages and just wanted confirmation that the correct policy at the moment is for them to be orange???. didn't want to change them incase orange had now been switched to green as the standard colour. --Scraggy4 19:56, 20 April 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Orange is the standard color for "Original studio albums," but different types of albums are designated different colors. Take a look at the main project page for details. HTH, --Jrdioko 01:23, 21 April 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: many thanks, I have now noticed my oversight. That's what happens when you work with blind people for a living, it sometimes rubs off. --Scraggy4 16:47, 21 April 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these colours sufficiently contrasting with the foreground colours for all viewers? I can imagine that readers with diminished eye-sight would have problems reading some of these texts on relatively dark backgrounds.--Branko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.109.232.171 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 23 April 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was waiting for someone to mention this problem with the wiki colour boxes. As far as I aware my organizations policy is for all text to be made available in either Arial or Times New Roman with a font size of 16 as well as supplying audio and braille versions. All background colours should also be avoided if at all possible. Obviously very few articles are written with thought for the visually impaired (many older people also develop various vision problems which makes contrast a problem) in mind. The easiest solution is by making a text only version of the page available for all users to who this may be of help. --Scraggy4 19:08, 23 April 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albumbox colors 

message: After a message from user:Jrdioko on my talk page I was wondering if the needs cover page could be expanded to include other info. that users haven't been able to find, possibly in easy to use table form something like the following. --Scraggy4 11:23, 25 April 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a great idea. Move the /Needs cover to something more general (I can't think of anything great off the top of my head right now), and put all the albumbox info there. After a new article has been made, the user can go to that page, copy and paste the box, fill in the info, and then others can take it from there. The only problem I can see is if some of the more detailed information simply isn't available anywhere, but then whoever is working on it can just remove that entry. Suggestions?   — Jrdioko (Talk) 17:39, 25 April 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put a possible example of an album / single information required box on my user page from the list on the needs cover page. This would allow all song missing info to be in one place. I thought I found a different page earlier that was for missing info but I can't find it now (sort of explaining the problem and possibly confirming the need for info in one place.) It would also have to be explained on the album & song project pages. anybody have any suggestions?? --Scraggy4 00:32, 26 April 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Needs cover 

message: With the new skin, the albumbox is pushed to the top of the page instead of forming a bar on the right. What can be done about this? --Acegikmo1 01:17, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason, the parser isn't accepting the  in the first line of the table. I tried moving it to the template namespace, but that didn't help. Currently, the only solution would be to ditch the msg and use subst instead. I've been working on a templated version over on test (see Aquemini), but it's still a bit buggy. --Lee (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be the skin's fault, not the album boxes', so why don't we ask the people who work on the skin to see if they can do anything about the skin to fix it? -- LGagnon Talk 01:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the only project suffering this problem with the new skin. I believe any project using templates for their infobox/taxobox has also ran into the same issue. I think the skin needs to be fixed, rather than us trying for a workaround. --RedWolf 03:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all of them are having problems. Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements seems to be doing fine. --Caliper 23:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's working for Elements because that project is not defining a table using a custom message. The Albums project uses  which defines a table using wiki syntax. MediaWiki 1.3 seems to be ignoring the parameters specified in the custom message which tell it to put a border around it and right justify the box. --RedWolf 04:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

text: A workaround for the MediaWiki 1.3 bug is to replace  with  as suggested by Lee. I have done that for The Division Bell for an example. The drawback of doing that is not only do all the album pages have to be changed but then if the message is changed, the changes will not be reflected in all the articles that have been updated to use subst unless the article is edited and saved again. I would say wait for a few days when some of the developers get back (I hope!) from the USA long weekend and have them fix the broken 1.3 parser. Of course, with the dozens and dozens of bugs reported in the last 2 days with 1.3, they might not get around to it right away. --RedWolf 04:36, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I have added a comment to an existing bug  related to use of tables within templates. --RedWolf 06:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The developer seems to have ignored my comment when he fixed the original issue reported by the bug. So, I have opened a new bug:  --RedWolf 16:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Skin 

message: Everyhit.com is a searchable database of chart entries in the UK. This may be useful for people. --Secretlondon 22:56, 1 July 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Very useful and very interesting, thanks. Lots of nice trivia and award sections too. --Bwmodular 08:13, 2 July 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  British chart info 

message: I've seen some painfully stretched and shrunk columns in some albumboxes. That's usually due to the length of some comment fields that usually make the third column smaller than usual. I would put a width="33%" in all columns (or at least in the first non-"colspan=3" ones). I have tested this in Rammstien and results were satisfactory. Should we add it to the example? --KeyStorm 22:44, 3 July 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed column widths 

message: There has been discussion about merging the content of the vinyl record article into the gramophone record article and making the first into a redirect to the second. I'd therefore suggest linking "LP" or similar designations where appropriate directly to "gramophone record". Alternatively, if some folks feel that "vinyl record" should remain a seperate article, explain your reasons at Talk:gramophone record. --Infrogmation 00:08, 5 September 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vinyl record" v/s "Gramophone record" 

message: Ive noticed that AllMusic.com is listed as a place to cite reviews for albums. Not sure if anyone had realized this, but AMG's rating system is vastly different from most other sources'.
From AMG's FAQ:
Our experts use a 1 to 5 star system (5 is the highest rating). It is important to note that we rate albums only with the scope of an artist’s own work -- we only compare a release to other releases by the same artist. 
Thus, every band will have at least one very highly rated album. Maybe this sort of rating shouldn't be used in the tables. Or should be distinguished from the traditional sort of rating.
opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by George.dickeson (talk • contribs) 16:29, 12 September 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  AllMusic.com ratings 

message: I've been working a bit with HIM lately completing information, adding albums, etc. and I noticed that some days ago, without posting anything to the discussion and even adding some albums (at least Love Metal) to VFD during surprisingly only 37 minutes Samuel J. Howard redirected all 4 album articles to the bandpage and appended them chronologically to it, as you can see now.
So my question is: is this the way supported and recommended by WikiProject: Albums? Or should it be splitted back again?
I'm afraid this is not the right way, but I thought I should bring the discussion right here to get the clear opinion of WP: Albums about this. --KeyStorm 13:08, 12 September 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The albums should be in separate articles. Initially, album pages tend to be just just a brief description, track listing and personnel. Over time, the info box is added as well as additional information about the album itself (see the project info for more details). The band page should contain a Discography section, listing all of the band's albums in chronological order (which helps get the next/previous albums in the infobox correct). At this point, sometimes the albums are not linked. So, as for your particular case, the album info should be split out again. A message should be left on that user's page telling him not to fold albums back into the band page. --RedWolf 16:37, 12 September 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albums and band's article, together or separated? 

message: As many albums released in different countries are released on more than one label, which record label should be included in the information box - all of them or just the one in the country the album orginally came from? --Deus Ex 10:25, 12 September 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this issue also arose when it came to release dates, the decision was to use the first date of release of the album in whichever country came first. So, I would say only list the first label. You could put the other labels and dates into the article body itself. --RedWolf 16:41, 12 September 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record label 

message: Discussion at Template talk:Album. --— Matt 03:50, 15 September 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album template too large? 

message: Are there any thoughts on a standard way to list awards and nominations (such as the Grammys) for albums? I added an "Awards" section to Billy Joel's 52nd Street and The Eagles' Hotel California. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. --DCEdwards1966 04:45, 12 October 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: If I made a WikiProject Sound samples to encourage the uploading of ogg vorbis music samples, would anyone join me? I think it'd be great if we had samples of as much as possible, but it's rather tedious and time-consuming to do in bulk. If you don't know how, it's easy -- I can walk you through on a Mac and point you in the right direction on a Windows. We could even advertise a week in which we encourage Wikipedians to do just two a day for a week, or maybe just one sample for their five favorite bands/albums/whatever -- with the number of users who probably have copious sound samples, we could really move towards having a comprehensive review of music. Any takers? (I am posting this to several project pages, please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music) --Tuf-Kat 22:25, 16 October 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sample uploading project 

message: I have lately come to the conclusion that WikiProjects should set goals. I have begun to do so at Wikipedia:WikiProject World music/Phase 2, but that isn't a very active WikiProject. This is, however, an active project. We could set a goal, such as making a non-stub article on each of the albums at list of rock and roll albums (which is an aggregate of professional "best-of" lists), and promote any five to featured article status, for example. When we all agree that the articles are non-stubbed and all five have been promoted, then we can begin to keep tallies on the number of non-stub and featured articles, and showcase our best work and such. What do y'all think? --Tuf-Kat 20:09, 15 October 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goals 

message: Neutrality made several changes to the example table on the main page, which I've now reverted. The first reason is because I personally disagree with most of them, but even aside from that, some of the changes made directly contradict other information on the page, namely using a piped link to a "year in music", and also not using the date of a review as the link text (when known). It's important that the page at least be consistent in itself, you shouldn't go changing one thing without ensuring that the rest matches up, and you shouldn't make such changes without at least discussing them first. --Lee (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the example infobox table have background=transparent set in its style tag? This causes the horizontal line from section headers to show behind the box? Most albums I've viewed do not have this problem, is it a recent change? I created several Mike Doughty album pages from this template and I'm wondering if I did something wrong. --Rhobite 00:06, 6 November 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Guanaco made the change on August 29. I removed the transparent style from the template. --DCEdwards1966 00:41, 6 November 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the example table 

message: Recently a couple of sub-categories of :Category:Albums by artist have been listed on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. :Category:Ashlee Simpson albums on the grounds that she only has one album released so far, and :Category:Chantal Kreviazuk albums due to lack of notability. Also, List of albums has been listed on Vfd, where quite a few people recommend scrapping the list in favor of categories. Now, when I first suggested the Albums by artist category, I envisaged it to be just that, a categorical equivalent of (or replacement for) List of albums, that is to say, a list of album articles sorted alphabetically by artist.
With that in mind, I had hoped that all album articles would eventually be marked with the appropriate artist album category, alongside the year category. Perhaps I was wrong to suggest it. Anyway, I would encourage more people to pass comment (for or against) at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, to help get a clearer sense of consensus on the use of these categories. --Lee (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Albums by artist