Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 16

message: There is a  template that is starting to be used on album articles. We don't currently mention this at WP:ALBUM#Misc. I think we should decide if this template should be used on album articles, and if so mention it in the guideline. I have some concerns about this template though: Is it meant to replace other sections (such as tables) of single information or supplement them? If the former, is this template sufficient for doing so? Many album articles contain more information about singles than just the name and release date. Chart positions are what come to mind, but I assume other info exists as well. Are we saying that name and release date is the only info we want about singles, or should the template be expanded? If the template is not meant to replace other sections about singles, it may be redundant duplication of info, especially if the other info is presented in a table. Another concern is how singles like the seventh single here are supposed to be used with this template. (That table used to contain a column of single covers which were removed for fair use reasons, which is why it looks a little odd.) I guess single 7 = Why Does My Heart Feel So Bad?" / "Honey would work technically, but it seems like a hack and wouldn't be very obvious to editors. Opinions? --PEJL 12:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that the use of this template has now been mentioned on WP:ALBUM. This makes resolving the issues mentioned above all the more urgent. --PEJL 13:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was something I thought of when I first created the template, but I couldn't think of a simple way of doing it. But when it comes down to it, basic use editors will figure out a way of implementing it, and those that don't figure it out are likely to have it corrected by someone who knows what they're doing. I'm for making it simpler, but I don't know a way it can be done. Maybe adding in an "if" variable for "single 1 song 2, single 1, single 1 date; single 2 song 2, " etc and if it appears there, then you just use a carriage return and place the second song title on the secod line, much like I've done on Internaionalist (album) with Don't Wanna Be Left Out/Good-Day Ray. --lincalinca 02:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommending use of <nowiki>{{Singles}}</nowiki> template 

message: thre is no mention of the attention attribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 
:What attention attribute? Where should it be mentioned? --PEJL 22:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  attention 

message: Many album articles contain a link to All Music Guide (AMG) in the professional reviews section, but very few album articles contain a link to AMG in the external links section. Recently some edits have been made to also add such external links to FA articles. I think we need a guideline about this, either that duplicate links should be avoided, or that they need not be avoided.
I think it is reasonable to avoid duplicate links to AMG (or any other review source). While it is possible to link to different tabs of AMG album entries, the ones relevant here are the "Overview" (example) and "Review" (example) tabs, which in practice are so similar that they are basically the same. Therefore I'm proposing adding the following text to the external links guidelines for albums:
:Links to individual reviews shouldn't be included here, but links to professional reviews can be included in the professional reviews section of the infobox.
This also serves other purposes:
*to point out that professional reviews should be elsewhere, for editors not familiar with the professional reviews section.
*to clarify that non-professional reviews shouldn't be included anywhere in the article, even if they are in the external links section rather than the professional reviews section.
Any objections? --PEJL 13:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I tweaked the wording to "individual reviews", to avoid disallowing linking to Metacritic album entries. --PEJL 01:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. --PEJL 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate links to All Music Guide 

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

message: Do things like live concerts and music video compilations released on DVD/VHS fall under the scope of this wikiproject? If so, should they be categorized in the same way as other albums? PC78 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked that a long time ago and nobody ever gave me an answer. I don't know. Violask81976 21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: They can be treated similary. Do you have a specific question? They shouldn't go in album categories. No project seems to want to step forward and take them. Has anyone seen video infoboxes? -Freekee 05:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an infobox for them (Template:Infobox music DVD), as well as a category (:Category:Music videos and DVDs). I was wondering if articles like (for example) Kylie Showgirl belong in :Category:Kylie Minogue albums? PC78 11:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no. It should be under :Category:Kylie Minogue videos and DVDs, which would then fall under :Category:Kylie Minogue, alongside the albums category. It's a bit wordy, but it's the best way to catagorise, however the rule with albums is that even if an artist has only released one album, we create the category, but I'm not so sure the same rule should apply for music DVDs, as the majority of them are only one-shots except for really top end artists. I say we put it to the floor to see what people think about this. --lincalinca 02:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVDs and videos 

message: How do people feel about changes such as this change that add extra chronologies for the releases by a certain record label? Personally I think they're inappropriate and set a bad precedent, but since there are so many of them, I though it best to bring this up here before removing them. --PEJL 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditch them, I say. Sounds like the label adding articles in to make their contribution to the album more noticable in the public eye, the greedy assholes. Ditch them all. Burn them. --lincalinca 02:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've taken care of this. Jogers (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to be un-taking care of it. I'm the one who added that chronology. I have never worked for SST Records, which was a much more important label in contemporary American music than some of the garbage you people listen to. --CJ Marsicano 18:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I left a message about this discussion for the user who actually made the changes, User:Roman Dog Bird. Are you using multiple user accounts or something? As for whether these chronologies should stay or not, we'd be interested to hear actual arguments in favor of keeping them (preferably without insults about others musical tastes). --PEJL 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he's really the guy who started doing it. I thought it was a good idea and started where he left off. Roman Dog Bird 22:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And a new WikiProject is being established by me for all SST Records releases artists, and one of the eventual goals of the project is going to be to reestablish the chronology. Roman Dog Bird picked up the ball where I had left it. --CJ Marsicano 15:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should probably seek consensus for adding such chronologies here before adding them back. --PEJL 19:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: PEJL is right. You still didn't provide any arguments in favor of them. Jogers (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, Jogers, since CJ Marsicano apparently added some of these, did you remove those as well, or just the ones by Roman Dog Bird? (We may want to hold off on nuking them for now if so, to allow arguments in favor of them to be presented.) --PEJL 19:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed all of them from pages that both transcluded  and linked to SST Records. I missed Crazy Backwards Alphabet somehow, though. Jogers (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unorthodox extra chronologies 

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

message: I propose the following text be added to WP:ALBUM#Template:Extra album cover 2:
:The upper caption should be "Alternate cover" for alternate covers. (amended text below)
to codify existing practice. Any objections? --PEJL 21:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Cheers, Ian Rose 22:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sometimes helpful to see exactly what kind of alt. cover it is, i.e. why is there multiple covers (int'l release, re-release, censored original, etc.)  Nonetheless, this could/should be covered in the article so I can't say that I completely disagree. (Sampm 03:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For alternate covers the upper caption should be "Alternate cover" and the lower caption should mention where that cover was used (int'l release, re-release, censored original, etc.).
which reflects current practice to almost the same extent. Any objections to that? --PEJL 09:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The clarified wording sounds good to me. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. --PEJL 19:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardizing upper caption of extra album cover 

message: Currently under discussion on the talk page for the Wikipedia fair use page:
*  Whether to add the following text to the fair use policy:
:Examples of unacceptable use
:* A CD cover, album cover, or boom cover used to illustrate an article about the CD, album, or book, when the article does not include critical commentary of the cover art
:Discussion here.
*  Whether discographies should ever be allowed to include album cover images. 
:Discussion here.
These discussions are where policies are being fixed that the Album project will have to live with, so if you have a view, now is the time to make it heard. Jheald 18:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on the fun at WP:FAIR 

message: Yea...I'm kinda sorry..but the whole Betacommandbot/WP:FAIR is too much shitcrap for me...I get extremely mad everytime I even come on here now because of the chosen few who have the power and just say "No...read the policy", "It can't happen" or just don't say anything to me when i try to talk about it. I'm tired of fighting a losing battle...face it. Wiki will be Free As A Bird, and 99% of the music articles. Let them become like every other enyclopedia that doesn't know what IV and Smash Hits would look like if they saw it in a store. I'm about to do what I've wanted since I found out what a wiki was: have a whole wiki dedicated to music. So I'm pretty much going to leave. When The Bled released their new album, I might make that article. Whenever DT puts out an album, I might help. Once all this whole fiasco ends, I'd love to know so I can watch the Wikipedia empire fall.
The only thing that's still holding me back is my un-knowledge of template-making. I've tried to copying the sourse codes of the Album infobox and it's transcluded templates..but it isn't worknig out. If anyone could help me with templates, I'd love it. If you're gonna help me out, then that'd be great. Lemme know if you do here: Forte. Violask81976 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you for real? Do you know how long that would take? That's a colossal project. Good God Man, someone's smoking reefer and it's probably me... I would need some type of royalty for this or somm'm. Seriously though... Dude, my eyes are burning from just the few pages I put up *here*. If you think fighting the Wiki Purple Power Ranger Death Bot is bad, wait till you get legal notices from content you thought were free.(which is *nothing* in the music industry) I wish you best of luck brother. If I get tired here on Wiki, i'll just be archived, what are you going to do if you get tired?...On VioWikilask.--ZapperZippy 05:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i know it's huge, but at least i have a model to go by that Wikipedia didn't-Wikipedia. And if i get tired before I can get others to help then...i jsut had fun. As far as legal notices...Wikipedia isn't getting them, why would i? Violask81976 13:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Hi, I'm member of polish wikiproject Music. We are wondering why singles are in quotation marks. Can someone send me a link or reply (best on pl.wiki). Thanks in advance. Yarl talk • PL 14:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidelines are here.  I don't speak Polish, but you should check the Polish Manual of Style, as I believe each country tends to have its own standard style guidelines. - Alex valavanis 23:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know how, question is why. We want to change in plWiki quotes into italics, because single is a kind of release (like LP, EP etc.). Yarl talk • PL 11:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: singles are also songs, which should go in quotemarks a la Manual of Style. in terms of why, i suppose the simplest answer is because it's consistent, distinguishes from album titles, is non-cluttery and looks better. tomasz. 11:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles and quotation marks 

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

message: The third parameter was intended as essentially an advanced option. Most users won't know about these unless they read the documentation, so clarity in the documentation should minimize off-label usage.
I think what I'm hearing now is an objection to any inclusion of a 2nd link in the template. Is that really the issue? Should this be removed?
Is there a specific recommendation for how to improve this? I don't think incredibly long parameter names will fix this problem. Should this ability removed? Should we just not use this template? / edgarde 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to including a second link, I was merely noting that a potential editor might have problems understanding the difference between the "cgurl" and "review" parameters, if there really isn't one in the majority of cases (when only one link is used). As I noted before, one alternative is using parameters that differ on how they would actually be used (a separate "rating" parameter), rather than the type of link target (Consumer Guide/capsule or not). But that has problems of its own (two sets of album/artist/name/url parameters), so I'm fine with this implementation. --PEJL 16:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3d parameter

message: So the webmaster for RobertChristgau.com graciously sent me a file of the album database, just names, titles, IDs, grades and other IDs not of interest to this project. Given a list of all these, I wonder what is the best way to make this data convenient for  users?
While this hasn't been declared free, he seems amenable to making it public from Christgau.com at some point.
Interestingly, this webmaster appears to be Tom Hull, another published music critic whose tastes, writing style and ratings system resemble Christgau's, but whose website(s) ("Recycled Goods" and Jazz Prospecting, maybe others), are differently organized. Good jazz coverage. / edgarde 05:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Got the album IDs