Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 15

message: I asked this question in general terms here (and was directed to the answer, in an earlier archive), but I'd like some clarification. Specifically, I was wondering how this would apply to Celtic music in particular — where tracks are often sets of multiple tunes (sometimes four our five of them, occasionally more), and where listing them in the manner specified in Archive 7 could easily be confusing. The long and short of it is, the nature of straight-up-and-down Celtic music (as opposed to Celtic New Age) may be a special case, and I’d like to be clear on whether or not that’s so.
I'll use Natalie MacMaster's Fit as a Fiddle as an example, since I actually have the liner notes in front of me — tracks 1 and 4, specifically, since those two would establish enough of a pattern to do the rest. You'll notice that the track/set names are pretty darn generic on this album ("Strathspeys & Reels" and "Jigs", for example). This may make it even more of a special case. Note that for clarity, I’m putting in the actual track number instead of the pound symbol (#) as I’m leaving out tracks 2 and 3.
Option 1 — see also Cherish the Ladies' The Girls Won't Leave the Boys Alone
:1. "Strathspeys & Reels: John Campbell's/Miss Ann Moir's Birthday/Lady Georgina Campbell/Angus on the Turnpike/Sheehan's Reel" – 4:20
:4. "Waltz: Nancy's Waltz" – 2:25
Option 2 — the same as Option 1, but with boldface for the set title
:1. "Strathspeys & Reels: John Campbell's/Miss Ann Moir's Birthday/Lady Georgina Campbell/Angus on the Turnpike/Sheehan's Reel" – 4:20
:4. "Waltz: Nancy's Waltz" – 2:25
Option 3 — which looks more like the example in Archive 7, but fails to make clear that the tune names are not part of the track title
:1. Strathspeys & Reels: "John Campbell's"/"Miss Ann Moir's Birthday"/"Lady Georgina Campbell"/"Angus on the Turnpike"/"Sheehan's Reel" – 4:20
:4. Waltz: "Nancy's Waltz" – 2:25
Option 4 — which looks more like the liner notes, and has the added bonus of allowing a low-clutter inclusion of who composed individual tunes (in this case, most of the tunes on the album are traditional: if that should be noted for each tune individually, say so, but I’m not giving you an option 5 just to cover that possibility)
:1. "Strathspeys & Reels: John Campbell's/Miss Ann Moir's Birthday/Lady Georgina Campbell/Angus on the Turnpike/Sheehan's Reel" – 4:20
::; "John Campbell's"
::; "Miss Ann Moir's Birthday" (Charles Duff)
::; "Lady Georgina Campbell"
::; "Angus on the Turnpike"
::; "Sheehan's Reel"
:4. "Waltz " – 2:25
::; "Nancy's Waltz" (Chris Romaine)
Basically, those are the four options that I came up with. Note that for the last one, though, the Charles Duff linked to may not be the right guy — in fact, I think it's probably somebody else entirely. Despite that, my own preference is for Option 4, if it works with the auto-numbering thing (using the '#' at the start of each track).  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a Celtic album with a (workable) variant of Option 4. Rather than reproduce it here, I'll just ask you to take a look at The Chieftains 9: Boil the Breakfast Early instead.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No bold, please. Option four seems a little inconsistent. Did you mean to exclude the text ": John Campbell's/Miss Ann Moir's Birthday/Lady Georgina Campbell/Angus on the Turnpike/Sheehan's Reel" from track one, like you did for track four? Note that The Chieftains 9: Boil the Breakfast Early uses a nested list (starts lines with '#*'), which is preferable to abusing  and  which is what the colons and semicolons do. Note also that we discussed medleys again recently. I'd say option one or four would be most in line with current practice (assuming you strip the text I noted from option four). --PEJL 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sets — clarification

message: Can anyone point me to where this is deprecated?  I know that it is, but I've lost sight of where exactly.  Thanks. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MUSTARD#Usage --PEJL 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 08:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sophomore 

message: People seem to be tagging all and anything by a british article as "britpop" - the cat needs cleanup. --Fredrick day 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  britpop needs clean-up 

message: Should RIAA certifications given to music albums be capitalized on pages like discographies? Some editors do capitalize (see Earth, Wind & Fire discography, Audioslave discography) and some (I actually know only one) don't (see Britney Spears discography, Eminem discography). I need opinion of at least two experienced wikipedians, thanks! Daniil Maslyuk 13:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking whether the word "certification" should be capitalized in RIAA certification? No, I don't think it does. RIAA is the name of an organization, but "certification" is a descriptor. -Freekee 03:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps words like "gold", "platinum", etc. The RIAA certification article itself capitalizes these awards. –Unint 04:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, I meant words like "gold" and "platinum". Daniil Maslyuk 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIAA certifications given to music albums 

message: There is a current debate regarding the fate of the "final albums" category.  Those that wish to do so might weigh in.  I'm not adovocating a position nor do I have a strong opinion.  I just find it hard to keep up with category debates until they are already being deleted. -MrFizyx 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't even aware this category existed, probably because the existence of categories like this has been a bit of a mystery to me. WP:ALBUM#Categories just mentions Category:ARTIST albums and Category:YEAR albums. I've just now found that :Category:Albums (linked via :Category:Final albums) contains a list of various album categories. It seems at least some of those categories are automatically added to articles when appropriate. I think we should update WP:ALBUM#Categories to mention :Category:Albums and/or list some or all of the categories listed there that album articles should manually use. --PEJL 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, :Category:Eponymous albums that was mentioned here back in April and was noted to be deleted, now seems to be back. --PEJL 15:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Final albums]] 

message: WP:ALBUM#Assessment_classes "Start" implies that an album article must be declared a stub unless it has several things, one of which is "• A minimal list of credits (band members, at least)".  Does this hold true for compilation albums as well?  Since such albums frequently span considerable time, giving even a minimal list of credits and properly stating who belongs to which song can be very awkward.  And what about for solo artists?  Backing musicians for tracks on a compilation can typically each be different; listing all of them would be quite unwieldy.  Wasted Time R 13:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good chance to ignore all rules. -MrFizyx 03:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't put too much effort into it. Of course, I wouldn't put too much effort into comp album articles in general, but I guess that's beside the point. If it's not too tough, a basic listing would be good. I wouldn't go into detail about who played on which tracks, but a mention of all the band members who played on the record, and maybe the producers, would be a good thing. Guests players are not necessary, but significant appearances might be listed in the text. Use your judgement. -Freekee 03:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should make sure the rules are optimal before starting to ignore them. Specifically, perhaps the requirements for different assessment classes should be loosened for compilation albums, or possibly only the requirements for start status should be. I don't know (and I don't feel qualified to answer that since I don't assess many articles). On the other hand, what is the harm in keeping these compilation albums at stub status? --PEJL 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think keeping a minimal personnel list satisfies the assessment requirements without the need to change them for compilations or hold comps back. Besides, some studio albums have very basic personnel lists and still make Start class. -Freekee 03:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about box sets like The Beatles Box Set, should we have exceptions for those? This criteria means that article should be stub class, but it's currently assessed as B class. --PEJL 00:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do compilation albums require personnel sections to avoid being stubs?

message: Further up, Secretlondon writes: "[Album images] are *only* fair use in the album article, not the graphical discographies that seem to have sprung up. They all need removing".
I'm not sure this is correct.  Consider eg :Image:Beatles - Abbey Road.jpg which includes fair use rationales for various pages including The Beatles discography.
It seems to me the use of the image on that page falls squarely within WP's fair use thinking: it is a thumbnail, it is not replaceable, it is being used to illustrate the product in question, it does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work; and its use, in a review of the band's whole output, is for an appropriately transformative purpose. Jheald 11:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, don't you just need a separate FU rationale? -- Reaper  X 17:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would cite Ozzy Osbourne discography as a visually appealling page that has thumbs which are hard to use as a visual identifier of the album unless you squint. Once you find your entry, if your familiar with the album cover, then you might notice the similarities. This a great start, IMO. I like the box style and such, I've seen so many different styles it's hard to say which ones are the most ergonomic. All in all, it breaks up the monotony of endless text on a page that has you trying to slit your wrists half way down...Kinda' like here Kiss discography and if memory serves me correct, if I try to look for something in what appears to be gobbledy gook computer code?, I'll lose interest real quick...so might others--ZapperZippy 23:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of album covers in discographies 

message: The article is an FA candidate.  Please could anyone with some spare time have a look at it.  Thanks - Alex valavanis 09:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work! Jogers (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kid A]] 

message: I am not sure if this article is well resourced, or if it is very notable. Maybe it should be deleted? Kris 22:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I added  to it. --PEJL 12:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you joking? Out of Step is one of the most influential hardcore albums of all time. There are plenty of sources if you care to take the time to find them. And might I suggest reading up on criteria for deletion while you are at it? Not being well sourced is not one of them. Thanks. – B.hotep u/t• 20:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of Step (album)