Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 11

message: Apologies if this is already mentioned somewhere, but where are the album cover images supposed to come from? Are you supposed to scan them yourself, or what? Eric Mushroom Wilson 17:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By claiming Fair use, you can obtain it from web, or make them yourself. In any case, you must use the  license. If you download it from the web, I suggest adding a link to the page containing the image, and a direct link to the image itself. If you download it from Amazon, add an  tag. Remember to add a fair use rationale in the image page. Finally, note that album covers may be deleted in the future, according to the discussion above this talk. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 17:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could also check out the All Music Guide, thats where I snatch all mine from. They are the perfect size; small enough to be considered low-resolution, but big enough that they dont pixelate in the  template. Still remember your tags and fair use rationale as ReyBrujo said. -- Reaper  X 17:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also found large images (which I reduce in size) at rateyourmusic.com which, despite my earlier disdain for them, useful as a third source of album info other than allmusic and amazon. Also, despite my refusal to market there, walmart.com has large-size pix as well. Keep in mind they should be reduced in size to conform to fair usage and used only in the album cited. --Fantailfan 01:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course to be really fair to the musicians and other copyright holders you could consider actually buying the albums yourself and scanning the covers – thereby ultimately contributing a royalty to these people - rather than just lazily thieving the images from someone else's website. ;-) Ricadus 00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where to get album cover images

message: Would be really good to have a field for awards that the album has won, e.g. best album of 2006, or other music awards.  When this applies (which is only obviously to some albums) it's probably more important than the professional reviews as it puts the album beyond good, and actually as the best, or one of the best, from a particular year, or catergory.  Brendanfox 00:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea for album infobox

message: Illmatic has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Sandy (Talk) 22:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Illmatic FAR

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Black Sun Empire released an album/LP called Cruel & Unusual in 2005. In a case like this where the title of the album has the '&' symbol should the article be created at Cruel and Unusual or Cruel & Unusual? --OriginalJunglist 16:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read a guideline about the ampersand in titles. However, you should provide alternatives. Personally, following the advice at the naming policy (which, by the way, may be a good place to ask), I would provide alternatives: create the article at Cruel and Unusual (album), create a redirect from Cruel & Unusual, and an inline disambiguation link at Cruel and Unusual. Note that many, many, many anonymous will copy the contents from Cruel and Unusual (album) to Cruel & Unusual, so if you follow this approach, you will have to keep both articles in your watchlist to prevent splitting the history. -- ReyBrujo 16:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, there is a !!! article, so you may just create it at Cruel & Unusual to prevent all that "battle" with anonymous. It may not be worth the trouble. -- ReyBrujo 16:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say it should be spelled the same as it appears on the album. Besides, it is a good disambiguator. I would suggest moving Cruel And Unusual (album) to Cruel & Unusual. Then set up a new redirect page at Cruel and Unusual (album), because the old page was miscapitalized. Maybe put a For the album, see... at the Cruel and Unusual page. -Freekee 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Cruel and Unusual (album) is considered a "unfeasible typo". While a user may type "Cruel And Unusual" and another "Cruel and Unusual", no user will type "Cruel and Unusual (album)", nor he will type "Cruel and Unusual (Black Sun Empire album)". So, while converting the existing article in a redirect is fine, there is no need for creating a disambiguation link for the "and" version, as it is not likely to happen. -- ReyBrujo 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Seeing how as the name of the album is "Cruel 7 Unusual", I would say to use that. $wingin' Utter$ has the "$" in the wikipedia : $wingin' Utter$, so I'd say to put it in. Violask81976 20:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? :Image:BlackSunEmpire-Cruel&Unusual.jpg -Freekee 17:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '&' or 'and' ? 

message: In the process of categorizing albums, when we come upon singles and Dvds, should they be put in with the artist's albums? For example: the Feelin' So Good (DVD) release by J.lo, should that be put in under [Category:Jennifer Lopez albums]? I'd say yes.
Violask81976 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DVDs I've come across lately have all been classified under artist's album categories. Bubba hotep 22:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't. :Category:Jennifer Lopez videos, maybe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freekee (talk • contribs) 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVDs? 

message: How strong of a guideline is the recommendation on excluding EPs and compilations (WP:ALBUM#Chronology) in Infobox chronologies? The current documentation says "only studio albums, usually excluding". I can see situations where certain EPs would be appropriate to include, but mostly they unnecessarily clutter a lot of chronologies. I imagine that removing them has the potential to start edit wars (given the passionate nature of fans), so I was wondering if a more detailed consensus has been reached previously on what "usually excluding" entails... --Fru1tbat 16:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always include them because I see the chronology as a handy navigation aid through the whole discography without referring back to the band article. This has a lot to do with the genres that I specialise in – mainly punk and metal, the former tending to release a lot of EPs. However, there aren't that many EPs out there, so I don't see that they would clutter the chrono that much. Bubba hotep 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I overstated the clutter, but when I'm jumping along a band's discography, I do find it fairly inconvenient to have to go through the EPs (which I don't care much about, generally) to get to the major works (which is what I'm generally looking for), and I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that most users would want/expect the same behavior (i.e. for the main chronology to link major works, not to be comprehensive). TMBG, for example, uses extra chronologies for every type of album (see They Might Be Giants (album)), and uses the main chronology as a comprehensive path (which is a nice compromise), but it makes sense there because TMBG has so many releases of each type. For bands with a more limited catalogue, it seems like it should be sufficient to leave the minor works to the main article or something... --Fru1tbat 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I think it would have to be done on a case by case basis. Like the idea of using the extra chronology though. Bubba hotep 08:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agree with Bubba. In many cases eps, lives and comps are repacking and cash-in by the label. In some they are vital to the discography of an artist's career. Fantailfan 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't like to see the "extra" albums in there. Live albums are okay, if they're significant releases. Greatest hits, generally not. I like the TMBG solution. As for EPs... it depends on the record. Some EPs are more like extended singles, and some are more like short albums. I would say if the EP is all original songs, include it in the chronology. If it leads off with songs from a full album, don't (and maybe include it in the singles chronology). -Freekee 17:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. I was thinking of EPs from the punk genre point of view where they are almost always mini-albums with tracks not found on any other albums (or if they are, they are re-recordings). They are generally not singles in the traditional sense. Bubba hotep 19:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPs, etc in Infobox chronologies 

message: Why are people still updating/using this page? Didn't the introduction of the category deprecate this list? Bubba hotep 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about this once. This page doesn't seem to be very useful now. Jogers (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. Where do people find it from, I wonder? Bubba hotep 12:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From WikiProject Albums, perhaps? :-) I've just removed the note from the Project's page. Jogers (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that it should be deleted just as needs infobox conversion list. Jogers (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Are we still using List of albums?  Surely we should be moving to :Category:WikiProject_Albums_articles instead?  If this is the case, maybe we should check that everything in the list has an  tag and then delete the list. Alex valavanis 12:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With over 37,000 (registered) articles (checks category summary above ;) ) lists are inherently unmaintainable. Next, people will be adding a new parameter to the album tag, something like "needs-adding-to-list-of-albums=yes"! Categories are the only way now with the speed the project is growing. Delete all the lists. Bubba hotep 12:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the remark about list deletion is a motion, then I second. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Once they are cleared, yes, deleto. :) Bubba hotep 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  By the way 

message: Recently, I noticed that some infoboxes have "Nocover.gif" for the cover, which gives the right image in the infobox, but doesn't include the article in the :Category:Albums without cover art.  Before I search through all of Wikipedia for cases where Cover = "Nocover.gif", and making that edit on each article, I'm wondering if we can change how pages are included in the cat by saying if Cover is missing OR if Cover = "Nocover.gif"?  It's just that I have no idea how to do such a thing.--Fisherjs 15:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be an adjustment to the infobox code in much the same way as something other than a recognised "type" puts it in the Non-standard infoboxes category. I must confess, I'm not much good with template code, although I am working on it. Bubba hotep 15:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It would need two {if} conditions. Looks simple in practice, but I wouldn't want to try it! Jogers or Fru1tbat are template wizards, aren't they? It's either that or a job for AWB to replace all instances of "nocover.gif" to null. Bubba hotep 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point! There must be plenty of infoboxes still using "Nocover.gif". I've already requested a change to the infobox. Jogers (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So whatever happened with this?  Can you provide a link to where this request took place (and was the request to deal with gif or png, now that I think of it)?  WP is a big place, yo!  Hard to find my way around sometimes.  Related question (as I just spent a few minutes replacing this gif image with the png version in the mainspace): what ever happened with this IFD? --Fisherjs 20:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was dealt with at Template_talk:Infobox_Album#Album_articles_without_cover_art, and indeed the modification was made. The IFDs look to be more or less done as well, though I have yet to receive feedback on the particular ones that I'm personally dealing with. –Unint 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to include article in [[:Category:Albums_without_cover_art|Cat:albums w/o cover art]]

message: I notice at The Definitive Collection, the Abba album gets this title, everything else (presumably) with this title has to be The Definitive Collection (Partridge Family)  (for example).  The talk page over there seems to state that Abba has rights to it and no one else.  I think there should be a disambiguation page for this title (I notice Donovan has one without the "The" at the beginning).  I'm pretty sure there are others besides Abba, Donovan, and the Partridge Family.  It says at the Abba page not to create more disambiguation pages without bringing it to the project.  I'm bringing it here and requesting the disambiguation page.Squad51 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find all pages that start with "Definitive Collection" or "The Definitive Collection" with the Special:Allpages tool. Those statements were probably made without awareness of these other articles; if there are many "Definitive Collection" articles in existence, then nobody will complain about a disambiguation page being created. –Unint 20:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Definitive Collection"

message: Now that it has been emptied, shall we go ahead and delete it?  As far as I can see, the only links to it are a few User Pages. Alex valavanis 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can also just redirect it to WP:ALBUMS. Jogers (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I'll do that.  Alex valavanis 19:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Needs Infobox" list 

message: Has anyone else noticed that the  tag is being used mostly for singles and songs, and yet it places articles in :Category:Needs album infobox conversion.  I feel that something should be done about this.  We could possibly do one of the following:
# Edit the template so that it adds articles to a new category instead: :Category:Recorded music articles needing infobox conversion.
# Edit the template so that it has a type parameter, which places the articles in either :Category:Needs album infobox conversion, :Category:Needs single infobox conversion or :Category:Needs song infobox conversion.  The three categories can be placed under one parent category.
I favour the latter, as editing will be simplified if all articles in a category need the same infobox conversion.  Any thoughts? Alex valavanis 09:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did notice. And I thought it was rather strange! I would favour the latter, also. Bubba hotep 09:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea. I prefer the second option, too. Jogers (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about modifying  instead? Jogers (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Have a look at the newinfobox page for details.  I could use some help replacing all the transclusions of  so we can get rid of the old template. Alex valavanis 10:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider help forthcoming. :) Bubba hotep 10:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I found one EP and converted the infobox there and then. Rest were singles and a couple of songs. Bubba hotep 12:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great stuff :) Thanks!  I'll put a note on WP:SONGS project page suggesting that they should look after the singles/songs conversions now Alex valavanis 12:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single/Song Infobox Conversion 

message: Hi I am new here and I have another question on an album type. A band who's pages I am working on put out an album that takes tracks from their earlier releases yet re-records them with their current (and mostly different) lineup. The vocal tracks sound close to the original songs but many other parts are in some cases subtly, in other cases obviously, different. I think this should called a studio album but I would like to hear opinions just to be sure. Also other than a Night Ranger album which hasn't been entered here I can not recall another instance of this so I could see how those pages were handled. Anyone know af some? Any help you can give would be appreciated. Thanks Solonyc 05:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Off the top of my head, I can think of :Still Cyco After All These Years by Suicidal Tendencies. It was a 1993 re-recording of a 1983 album. It is down as a "type=studio" and my rule of thumb is: if in doubt, if it was recorded in a studio, the type should be studio. Of course, there is the "type=remix" option, but I'm not sure whether that fits in with this type of album. I would say not. It's not strictly a compilation because they are re-recorded versions. I would say stick with "studio". Any anomalies can be dealt with in the body of the article anyway. Bubba hotep 08:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another album type question

message: Just a heads up that there is a cfd for Category:Washington D.C. record labels].  The main question being asked is if :Category:American record labels should be subdivided into states because of its size (it's a really big category).  I don't work much with record label stuff, but I thought you guys might want to give your input at the cfd.  Dugwiki 20:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD for [[:Category:Washington D.C. record labels]] 

message: Currently, there is a backlog of albums which need to be assessed at WP:ALBUMA.  Could more people participate, please?  Thanks. Real96 04:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not add it as the collaboration task? I'll help out later if I get a chance Alex valavanis 08:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment Backlog

message: Sorry, I'm running around with my head up my bottom today. Was anything ever resolved with the discussion above? Can anyone point me to the relevant policy where it states that album covers can only be used in the album article and not the band article to which they pertain? Is it policy? Is it interpretation? Only I've seen a few people enforcing this lately, but discussions seem to be scattered throughout the darkest corners of Wikipedia project space and I never have been able to find a definitive answer. Bubba hotep 10:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is reasonable to use an album cover on both the album page and the discography section (or page) of the artist. Others disagree. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) I think it is reasonable, too, but many people don't and are pointing to a policy which doesn't permit it. Unfortunately, I can't find it or interpret it as such. It was mentioned on the talk page of Wikiproject music as an aside to the "flags-in-infoboxes" ongoing discussion (near the bottom of the page). Bubba hotep 11:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see. Another problem then! Ooh, dear... Bubba hotep 12:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Although, I see from the second link Fritz gives that it alludes to the same disputed policy. Bubba hotep 12:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that, Fritz. Will have a look at that. And yes, I have clicked many a discog link only to be taken to the image rather than the album. I have used cover images in band articles as a supplement to body text at the point where the album in question is being mentioned, but rarely in discographies. My interpretation is that because they are being mentioned in the text (not necessarily discussed as such, more like: Band x then released the album, Album,... picture left sort of thing) their use is justified. Bubba hotep 12:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album covers and fair use - 2 

message: Do we really need the manually generated list of members here?  This category does the same job, and users automatically join it when they add the  tag to their user page.  As with all lists, it is difficult to maintain, and in this case, it occupies about a third of the project page for no clear reason.  Does anyone else support its removal? Alex valavanis 12:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just changed it to a link so it doesn't occupy so much space. Jogers (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too - edit conflict! :p  I tried to encourage use of the category.  See what you think.  Feel free to revert if you don't like it. Alex valavanis 12:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't care to have categories or userboxes on my user page. But then i also don't care if i appear on the project members list. I do link here from my user page. Do what you want. -Freekee 16:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants page 

message: This may or may not be the place to post this query, so if I'm out of line or place with this, please direct me to the correct place. Anyhow, since there already are a number of articles on gospel albums (country or otherwise), do you think it's a good idea to create a special album/color denoter for such albums, as to distinguish them from regular secular studio albums? Your thoughts are appreciated, but I think it's an excellent idea. [[Briguy52748 20:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the question is, what makes gospel albums different from other studio albums, other than genre? All infobox colours assigned so far have been independent of musical genre. –Unint 20:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the respondents so far.  I believe the type and genre fields should be mutually independent.  "Gospel" tells you nothing about the type of album: whether it is a live or studio or compilation album of songs from the gospel genre.  Also, take the example of rock albums.  There are thousands of articles about them, but the independent type/genre fields have worked pretty well for them. - Alex valavanis 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gospel albums