Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 13

message: Don't get me wrong, there's a lot here to keep me busy (and I'm working on it), but I was also wondering if anyone is interested in generating a list of albums that need to be redirected based on these capitalization rules.  Maybe also in cases where "Album" (with or without parentheses around the word) should be "album". I'd be happy to work on that as well. --Fisherjs 21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the list of album articles which titles contain the word "Album" somewhere inside parentheses. Note that it may be a part of the title in some cases. I don't know how to make a list of improperly capitalized articles. I'm not sure if it's even possible to do automatically. Jogers (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, when I add an infobox to an article should I take it off your list or will you update and regenerate them periodically? Thanks Solonyc (talk} 23:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It took me a while to make this list so I would prefer not to update it very often. So yes, please remove the articles as you add an infobox if it's not a problem. It's no big deal if you don't - somebody may do this later. I've divided the list into sections so it's easier to edit. Jogers (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll help work on some of those.  I noticed some in the list have other appropriate infoboxes, like Infobox single or Infobox DVD.  I presume those are ok to be taken off the list?  I'm just striking out the ones I've done on there for now. - gRegor 01:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's better to properly categorize them first. If an article is about DVD it should be categorized as :Category:Music videos and DVDs instead of being categorized as album, right? The same for singles. Another example: "The Perfect Drug" Versions is an EP so it should have  instead of . I think this kind of stuff should be cleaned up as well. Jogers (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm not so sure what to do with "The Perfect Drug" Versions. Could somebody take a look at this? Jogers (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (Yet another) maintenance list?

message: Is there a way to put both an extra chronology and an extra album cover in the same infobox? I have tried it a couple times and it hasn't worked. Is there a page that has both that I could look at? Thanks Solonyc (talk} 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The EP example A Call to Arms on the :Template:Infobox album page (next to Advanced usage) has both elements incorporated in it. You need to view :Template:Infobox Album/doc to see the code for it, though. What you need to remember, is that the "Misc" field is just one field and that the extra chrono and extra cover elements are separate templates within that field (nested). If it helps, I have separated the code here for you. By the way, this is how you end up with infoboxes longer than the article sometimes! Hope this helps. Bubba hotep 08:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bubba thanks. I don't know what I was doing wrong but I couldn't get it to work. You are right that the box is long but hopefully the article will get longer to. Take care Solonyc (talk} 14:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra chronology and cover 

message: I thought we were rid of this :Image:Nocover.gif using the png version instead.  But this gif version is back and there are pages linked to (using) it.  What is up?--Fisherjs 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now a Commons image.  Does anyone know what the deal is with deletion of images there? - Alex valavanis 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I've copied :Image:Nocover.png across to commons too. - Alex valavanis 19:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've marked the GIF as superseded and requested its deletion. - Alex valavanis 19:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nocover.gif

message: I have updated the banner. Please let me know if there are any problems. Agathoclea 17:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Banner 

message: I'd appreciate some help going through the recent contribs by User:Dr. Thug. He has created a number of artist and album articles which need cleanup. Thanks, Fang Aili talk 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, some work to do there, yes, not a problem. Bubba hotep 21:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles by [[User:Dr. Thug]] 

message: While you are at it - could you give Fan3 and Jack tha Ripper a look-over. Both are reincarnations of a user that is hellbend of promoting himself and a few of his rapperfriends (real or imagined). The obvious ones have already been deleted, but there still seems to be a lot of singles in there that I think should go, but I don't know enaugh draw the line. Agathoclea 22:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another article check

message: I have seen several editors adding the  tag with parameters like "needs-infobox=no" or "auto=no". I think there is no point of doing this. If the article already has an infobox or the assessment was done manually it is not likely to change, is it? Jogers (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do this mostly so that I simply keep one block of text in my clipboard and simply change a parameter value.  Having various templates to copy and paste would slow me down considerably, I think.  Also, I figured more info is better than less because while I don't expect those things to change, it's possible that somebot in the future may want to search for cases when needs-infobox went from yes to no to yes (who knows?). I guess I can drop the auto=no when I tag articles.  I was just trying to keep the template "complete" with all parameters. --Fisherjs 12:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think that only the parameters being used and the really common ones like class= should be added. That's how my plugin does it, but at the end of the day it's just opinion. --kingboyk 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Does it really matter? Personally I'm slightly in favour of making these thing explicit instead of leaving them to default values (which might change over time). Spearhead 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does it really matter? In most cases not one bit. --kingboyk 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  amen W guice 21:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album tag parameters 

message: A quick overview for newcomers: The Kingbotk Plugin is a set of add-on tools for the wiki editor, AWB. In bot mode it offers robust templating for WikiProjects. In manual mode, it can also be used to help editors assess articles quickly and efficiently.
Per requests, myself and  have just released a new version of the Kingbotk Plugin which is compatible with the latest AWB. To make things even easier, the plugin now ships with AWB. You may also have noticed my bot running over the last few days, testing the new version.
Since your WikiProject is one of the few which are programatically supported it's important that you inform us of any important changes to your WikiProject's template which have occurred in the last few months.
*The most important change we should know about is new redirects to your template. If your template could possibly be used on talk pages with a different name unknown to the plugin, double templating could result. Please take the time to check for redirects to your project's template - somebody might have created one without you noticing.
*Deprecated or removed parameters. We don't want complaints that the plugin is using old syntax now do we? :)
*Not critical in terms of annoying the masses, but for your own convenience you might want to let us know of any new parameters that the plugin needs to support. Remember, it only needs to support parameters which will be added by bots or which are useful in the article assessment process.
I hope you still find the tool useful. Comments, questions and bug reports to User talk:Kingbotk/Plugin. Cheers. --kingboyk 17:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingbotk Plugin 

message: One frustration I have with CD reissues is that tracks from both sides at places in back to back order. For example, Track 1 of Side B simply becomes Track 6 on the CD. Can someone mention to preserve the importance of sides for albums which were released on vinyl / cassette?--Theblackgecko 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sides 

message: Took my eye off the ball for a minute: two categories ("Needs infobox conversion" and "Albums without a by-year category") have been deleted (see redlinks on the category summary). Did I miss a CfD discussion? Bubba hotep 09:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a speedy deletion criterion if a category is empty for at least four days. Jogers (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh is it now? Well, I think someone should rectify that situation. :) Bubba hotep 09:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's OK in most cases. I wonder how people stop other maintenance categories from being deleted after they are emptied. Jogers (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I asked the question at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Jogers (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just checking now. I would assume that the category will reactivate when something is added to it anyway. It will still be redlinked but will have content. Bubba hotep 10:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the category description is lost and in case of :Category:Needs album infobox conversion it was quite useful. Jogers (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey Bub, don't you have the power to delete/undelete now? -MrFizyx 10:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, but I mustn't abuse the powers invested in me! Process, process, process n' all that :jazz! ;) Bubba hotep 10:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind process, if they're needed and the history is useful I'll undelete them. --kingboyk 13:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind undeleting them, but if they are going to keep getting deleted if they remain inactive for four days, a longer term solution may be needed. Bubba hotep 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe making sure they're a subcategory of a maintenance category, and then asking folks who are doing the deletion (in good faith of course) not to delete maintenance cats? Anyway I undeleted them. --kingboyk 13:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea. --kingboyk 13:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry... 

message: I occasionally see :Template:Extra album cover used for back covers, e.g. South of Heaven by Slayer.. I don't really see any point in adding these. Any thoughts on these? Perhaps make it more explicit on WP:ALBUM what is supposed to go in that template. Spearhead 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the :Slayer albums? I've moved them into the infobox from the article body in the past, but never seen much point in them as all they do is confirm the track listing! Bubba hotep 17:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, you did say Slayer albums in the first sentence. :) Bubba hotep 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there doesn't seem to be any point to them.  Unless the back cover is notable for some reason and we need to discuss it in the article, there's no reason why we need to put it in the article, infobox or not.  Jkelly 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll go and remove them then.... 19:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent front-page album FA Enta Da Stage has both back cover and CD face in the article. –Unint 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many AC/DC albums also have back covers (or did as of couple of weeks ago at least). --PEJL 08:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also agree. I'm a firm believer in using album and single sleeves, including in discographies, but in most instances using back covers and CD scans is a step too far. We're not an image repository. --kingboyk 10:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also agree in general. There needs to be a specific reason for including the back cover; as a guide, something worth referring to in the body of the article. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be useful to some capacity, but should not be included for no specific reason.Johnny2544 02:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say yes seeing as we are trying to achieve a free encyclopedia, and back covers that are not notable are fair use anyway.-- Reaper  X 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then, i just removed all the back covers from all the Ac/DC albums, with "do not put back covers in articles WP:FAIR" in the edit summary, and will for any other albums with back covers. Violask81976 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait on there... I don't think removing them "when we see them" is the consensus above, rather removing them if there is no clear reason for them being there. If the back cover is described in the article because of something notable, then there's a reason to keep it. If it's essentially there just for decoration, then it should go. Cheers, Ian Rose 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back covers 

message: Comment on support or opposition of Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_recordings_preserved_in_the_United_States_National_Recording_Registry. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLC notice 

message: Have you noticed Wikipedia:Fromowner? You can see this very useful stuff in action for example here. Wouldn't it be great to have similar thing tailored for covers to use in album infoboxes instead of plain :Image:Nocover.png? Jogers (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That thing is a great idea. On the other hand, a request for people to upload fair use images... You'll have to update me on the current atmosphere regarding that. –Unint 23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, people upload fair use album covers anyway and we already encourage them to do so with the "no cover available" image. Why not help them to do it right with detailed instructions? Jogers (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And besides, the backlog at :Category:Albums without cover art is still growing... Jogers (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it would be technicaly posible however given the abuse of fair use involved in our existing level of use I don't think it is a good idea.Geni 15:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fromowner 

message: I only started contributing recently and I have been using my own CD collection as the basis for the info I have added. Is this the same for most people here or do you use info from websites like AMG, Rolling Stone, commercial stores and fanpages? Also what sites do you feel are best for info? Thanks Solonyc (talk} 22:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For English language albums I mostly use AMG but using your own collection is much better. Jogers (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Often, I export an album from iTunes to a txt file, then import to Excel where I have created a mess of functions to turn the info into Wikicode, formatted according to the project.  I think most people put up info on music from their collection, which is why there is a ton of indie music and almost no classical.  It's a shortcoming of the album project, I think.--Fisherjs 13:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can one of you two tell me how to do one of those? It sounds interesting....Violask81976 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you do it? 

message: I've noticed quite a few album articles with horizontal rules among the reviews in the infobox, seemingly to delimit reviews with stars from those without. See for example The Earth Is Not a Cold Dead Place. Should this be encouraged or discouraged? --PEJL 08:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one would discourage it. While I think each professional review item should be limited to one line for neatness, the horizontal line is a needless subdivider in my opinion, which isn't aesthetically pleasing either. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Structurally it makes no sense. The reviews are part of a list, and bullet points delimit them. Punctured Bicycle 09:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the comments above. Would anyone be interested in cleaning this up? I might be able to make a list of articles which use this scheme. Jogers (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorted the one out that was mentioned. Bubba hotep 11:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm with Ian Rose, Bicycle, Jogers. (just so you know). W guice 13:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Horizontal rules (&lt;hr&gt; or ----) among reviews

message: where'd the 'Things You Can Do' box thing from the top go? can we have another? W guice 20:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here. Jogers (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: boss, cheers. W guice 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  stuff to do 

message: Anyone have interest in creating a specialized welcome template to welcome new users that edit album articles?  It could be as simple as modifying the Cycling template. Might be good to alert new users to the project before they create too many poorly formatted articles. Or just generally direct users to the project if their first few edits are album-related.  --Fisherjs 18:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this one from our friends at WikiProject Aircraft. Nice and bold and informative (obviously with tailored info pertaining to albums, of course!) Bubba hotep 20:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Welcome template

message: Freak Out! is currently nominated as a featured article candidate, and could use some support. This is a great article about an important album. It would be a shame if this did not pass FA status. (Ibaranoff24 10:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Freak Out!]] 

message: There is some relatively heated discussion, both on this article's talk page and on WP:AN/I as to whether the word "Outta" in the page title should be capitalized or not. On one side, it is clearly the intent of the artist to have it capital, and this is how it is listed everywhere; as well, many other albums, songs, TV episodes, etc. have a capitalized Outta in Wikipedia. On the other hand, the Manual of Style states that prepositions in titles should not be capitalized, and outta is just a contracted form of "out of" and so to that argument should not be capitalized.
Has this come up here before in reference to albums, and if so how has the apparent contradiction between the Manual of Style, and the "official" name of the work been resolved? Ryanjunk 19:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether it has come up here, but I've seen it at WP:AN/I, and I don't know what all the fuss is about. The title as you have it in the header is correct as far as I am concerned – capital S, capital O, capital L. Bubba hotep 21:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: to my mind "Outta" is not a real preposition and therefore the non-capitalised preposition rule doesn't apply to it. W guice 21:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In trying to come up with better explanations than preposition, I think it is actually an idiom. Bubba hotep 11:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the album's title parodies Straight Outta Compton, which is spelled with a capital 'O', as well as the unrelated film of the same name Straight Outta Compton. In my opinion it should definitely be capitalized.--NPswimdude500 04:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Funny how the N.W.A. album attracts no attention and Wikipedians create all of this drama over the "Weird Al" parody. -MrFizyx 22:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's not funny at all W guice 15:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Straight Outta Lynwood]] 

message: I was just reading the newspaper and this "new article categorization bot" caught my eye.  Anyone have thoughts on having User:AlexNewArtBot run something for our project to be included on this list?  I haven't investigated too much, but on first sight, it seemed like a good idea.  --Fisherjs 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I just read that. Seems like a very good idea to catch these articles from the start. I put the Signpost thing on my talk page now so I don't forget to look into it closer later on! Bubba hotep 11:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article categorization bot

message: I came across this infobox page and was wondering if someone can simply transclude the relevant section of code to update the page?  I don't know how to do it.  --Fisherjs 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied the code across and updated the infobox example. Bubba hotep 14:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copying works too.  Gracias.  --Fisherjs 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help needed to deal with out-of-date colors/types

message: The current wording just mentions about using "(album)" or "(EP)", which could be interpreted to mean that everything should use "(album)" except for EPs. How about soundtracks or film scores? I don't have a lot of experience with these, but I have seen a few that use "(soundtrack)" and "(score)". What about box sets, should they be disambiguated with "(album)"? Personally, I'd prefer to use "(album)" for all album pages, for consistency. --PEJL 04:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we want everything to use "(album)" as a disambiguator except EPs, soundtracks and film scores which would instead use "(EP)", "(soundtrack)" and "(film score)", the examples on The Prince of Egypt (soundtracks) could use "(FOO soundtrack)" rather than "(FOO)" as a disambiguator. If we want all album types to use "(album)" the examples on The Prince of Egypt (soundtracks) could use "(FOO soundtrack album)". Also, "(score)" or "(film score)"? (bikeshed question in the hopes of encouraging more responses ;-) --PEJL 05:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How should different album types be disambiguated? 

message: There are colors for compilations, remixes, albums, eps, live albums, film soundtracks, bot nothing for a split album.  I think a color for that would be good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Violask81976 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split album color? 

message: May I suggest altering the current text on track listings to say that when a table track listing is used, a wikitable is preferred over homegrown formats, for consistency. --PEJL 05:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone object? --PEJL 03:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah.  I think the numbered lists look just as good or better in most cases and are easier to create.  I use wikitables in my album articles, but usually not for track listings.  If the intent is to create greater consistency, why suggest a format that doesn't reflect the bulk of existing articles?  I also don't feel the need to micromanage the format for this. -MrFizyx 04:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I definitely also prefer numbered lists, but since the current text permits the use of tables, I'd prefer if those tables were as standardized as possible. In my limited sample of 1357 album articles, 98.5% use numbered lists, while 95% of the rest use wikitables. That just leaves Continuum, on which my conversion to a wikitable was reverted because of the lack of such a policy. Ideally, I'd like to get rid of tables for track listings altogether, but assumed that would be too controversial... --PEJL 05:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I misunderstood.  Yes, a numbered list or a wikitable would be more appropriate than a very pretty HTML table. -MrFizyx 17:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added this. I also recently noted that WP:CHART has a similar suggestion. --PEJL 07:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table track listing style

message: Is there a reason the current text refers to both Template:Extra album cover and Template:Extra album cover 2 and both Template:Extra chronology and Template:Extra chronology 2, or is this simply an oversight? Isn't the second version always preferred? --PEJL 07:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone object if I change to only refer to the "... 2" version of these? --PEJL 03:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection—I didn't know there were two versions. -MrFizyx 17:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did so. --PEJL 07:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't notice this discussion here. Version 2 should now be used in all cases. Version 1 has the deprecated "Background" field, whereas Version 2 has the type code (e.g. "studio", "ep", "live", etc) which auto-colours. Good spot and well done for changing it. Bubba hotep 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've put a note in bold under "Usage" on the Version 1 templates to use Version 2. It doesn't actually matter which one is in use (i.e. don't redirect one to the other, doing so will mess up whatever uses it), but all future album articles should use v2. Bubba hotep 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra album cover and Extra chronology templates

message: I think we should add a album type/color for mixtapes.  If you take a look at :Category:Mixtape albums, there's a ton of mixtapes, but they're all coded as Studio Albums, which doesn't seem very accurate.  There's been a smattering of discussions about this topic in the archive (here for instance) but not real action.  Also, while I'm at it, I agree with the post above about splits.  --Drewcifer3000 01:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixtapes 

message: When an album is assigned Type=soundtrack in , the generated link leads to soundtrack, a page that explains soundtracks in general, i.e., the dialog and sounds effects portion of a film (not separately available) is the "soundtrack." There is another page, soundtrack album, much shorter but more specific. It strikes me that:
*The  link should go to a more specific explanation
*soundtrack album could be merged with soundtrack (I am neutral on this, although soundtrack album seems very closely related to soundtrack and soundtrack album is a short, almost trivial article)
*If merged,  could have a "#" link and jump right to the relevant section
*If not merged, any rationale that keeps them separate would support changing the  link to soundtrack album
Opinions?
Also, see :Category:Album types. I was surprised this didn't exist, which may mean I missed a debate...
John Cardinal 12:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, soundtrack album should be merged with soundtrack. The template should still refer to soundtrack because it contains several varieties of soundtracks.--NPswimdude500 04:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type=soundtrack 

message: AlexNewArtBot has now started producing a list of newly created articles which contain the word "album". It is linked on the project page (here). It was transcluded, but the list is very long! I went through a load yesterday. Many were band or song articles, but all I did was remove them (put  on the songs/singles articles). Generally, the album articles just needed:
* Categorising (at least by-year cat)
* Stubbing with the correct sub-stub
* Infobox
* 
Didn't take too long, but we may need to keep on top of it otherwise that list will grow very long indeed. :) Thanks to Alex Bakharev for this very useful bot. Bubba hotep 08:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll just have to take my word for it at the moment – I just emptied it again! :) Bubba hotep 14:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your're so fast!  You gave a rating to my No Deeper Blue article only two days after I started it.  I suppose I should look at any non-stub rating on a partial article as a compliment.  I still need to work on some of the credits, etc. -MrFizyx 15:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two days? What was I doing??! Should have been faster, maybe within ten minutes. Starts kicking myself ;-) Bubba hotep 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm just trying to think how I came across that article: either it was on the bot list (likely) or I'm stalking your edits (hmmm...) Either way, it's a good article, and I have a sneaking suspicion it borders B-class, but would now have to wait for someone else to verify that. :) Bubba hotep 15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And faster than emptied it, it is full again. Bubba hotep 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. They are most likely ones that were deleted before I got to them... or after ;) Bubba hotep 12:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's only one way to find out if it breaks anything. I've put it there. If it does break, I will point them towards you. :P Bubba hotep 13:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AlexNewArtBot new article list 

message: Request assistance from interested partipants in a Request for Comment at the article From Genesis to Revelation. The dispute concerns notability of extra material on an album re-release. Any assistance in resolving this dispute is appreciated. RJASE1  Talk  18:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solicitation for RfC participation 

message: This CFD may be of interest to members of this project: Wikipedia:Categories_for discussion/Log/2007 April 1#Category:Sarah_Hudson_albums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Sarah Hudson albums 

message: Where do editors get their album sales information? Is there any one reliable source? — Sam 17:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely someone here knows of a reliable source? — Sam 22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my sympathies. It's depressing that we can't mobilize our resources and compile a list of reliable (official or printed) sources for delicate information like sales and chart placings. It's especially hard to find information for albums and singles from before the late 1990s, and non-US/UK information. Punctured Bicycle 00:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album sales information 

message: I've been looking again at missing categories on album articles (partly with a view to whacking down the size of the likes of , but also obviously for their own sakes).  Specifically, by-year and by-artist cats (with artist also being the means to genre ends).  There's about 1000 articles missing by-years, and around 6500 missing by-artists.  I could tag these for individual cleanup, but it might be more useful to do as was suggested earlier, and attempt to populate these by bot, from the infobox.  Which in turns leads me to (bear with me, nearly there!) to the matter of albums with no infobox;  or more precisely, articles with the WPJ template on their talk page, and no transclusion of .  Of these, there are about 3000, though the causes look fairly motley:  articles mistagged with the WPJ template, album-related articles that aren't actually albums, infoboxes coded by other means, such as raw tables, and who-know-what-else.  As such, I'd hesitate to suggest auto-tagging these, unless it was done in some very carefully-hedged manner:  perhaps the infobox parameter could be tweaked to allow might-need-its-infobox-looked-at and doesn't-need-an-infobox values, say.  In any event, here's the list of such articles: User:Alai/album-infobox.  Suggestions as to how to tackle them welcome.  Alai 02:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing infobox cleanup? 

message: I'm a little new in the area of articles on different kinds of albums, so I thought I would ask the question here. Is this article approriate? This doesn't seem to be an actual release, or is it? It seems to be just a box set of 3 albums and I don't think it deserves an article. Thoughts? — Moe 10:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the redirect for 3CD Box Set is inappropriate. Such a page should redirect to the general box set, if anything, but it is misspelled, since there's no space between the 3 and the CD. Second, that is not the title of the release. As far as I can tell, the official title is Greatest Lovesongs Vol. 666/Razorblade Romance/Deep Shadows and Brilliant Highlights. The next question is whether it should have its own article at all. I think not (so feel free to nominate it for deletion). I would say it's probably notable enough to be mentioned in the individual album articles. -Freekee 04:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[3CD Box Set]]

message: This has mainly come about because of the increasingly obvious fact that the output of AlexNewArtBot is growing by the day: as soon as it is processed for non-album articles, another raft of candidates appears before we can get down to the necessary on the ones it found 6 days ago. Couple this with the fact that I am now an admin and as such feel obliged to filter the band articles it spews up on a daily basis (at least ten or so per day) and delete the vanity non-notables (which quite frankly are an insult to all of us here who strive to write proper articles about bands and albums, and much as I like music, and there a few non-notables in my collection, there is a limit!) – we have a lot on our hands. If I attend to this on a regular basis, the album category summary suffers because it is not being used to deal with articles created months ago. One of Jogers' lists has album articles without infoboxes stretching to 2000+ at the moment. So, I am torn between the devil and the deep blue sea, to use a rather poetic cliche. Do I ignore ANABot and deal with the articles resident for some time that haven't been dealt with, or do I do away with the album category summary? Does anyone find it useful and use it? I know a few do, but it's nothing a few bookmarks can't deal with. Automating it would be an answer, but I tried that and nobody was interested, seemingly. Besides, I like to see the zeros, and would prefer to deal with them over looking at new stuff. I guess what I am saying is that my editing patterns may be changing soon (for the worse) and I would hate to think anyone (including myself) was thinking I was turning my back on this project. Feedback gratefully accepted. :) Bubba hotep 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General feedback 

message: Current aversion.com links
The number of review links to Aversion.com seems to be increasing, and the links seem to be getting added by a few editors (example here) I'm guessing that this is a non-notable review site, since it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, but I'm looking for some expert confimation before I clean the links out as spam. RJASE1  Talk  03:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what they say about themselves, but "Aversion Media" on Google only gets 10 results. (A marketing and promotion company... make of that what you will.) –Unint 03:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aversion.com - spam? 

message: Why does this list exist? Wouldn't it be better to have this as a category? The list goes somewhat unnoticed, but if it exists as a category, it's easier to add to the list. Plus, the fact that it's a list of eponyms, it's tautology to list the names twice.
--lincalinca 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The category's been deleted. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 26#Category:Eponymous albums –Unint 04:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the category has been deleted, does it make sense to keep the list? Jogers (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that most of the articles in :Category:Lists of albums could be done away with and replaced by categories. -MrFizyx 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see why the category was deleted, though; there are far too many of them, and this one seems as unnecessary as does the list. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the whole "list-cruft" reasoning. I mean, what purpose does a list of eponymous albums serve? Really?! -- Reaper  X 04:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of eponymous albums]] 

message: While we're on this subject: I think we should adopt as a convention the use of self-titled over eponymous in articles, as per this reasoning. Punctured Bicycle 07:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: he's only half-right. both senses are acceptable per OED. tomasz. 17:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which OED are you looking at? Mine—the online edition, which is supposedly comprehensive—says nothing about usage of eponymous with regard to albums. Punctured Bicycle 18:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1998 hardback edit., Clarendon Press. although since i last posted i think i should qualify that the use referring to the album, book, etc. is a subsense. tomasz. 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good enough for NME; indeed that's where I first encountered the word! --kingboyk 14:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd model your use of language on that of music journalists?  Gawd 'elp us. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 19:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might disagree with the opinions of music journalists, but you'd be hard-pushed to find fault with their use of language. tomasz. 10:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is WP:ALBUMS you know! :) --kingboyk 19:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall as clearly as Kbk the first time I heard it, but I've always known it as "eponymous" as well. It probably was the music press, come to think of it, but it is a term in quite widespread usage and Wikipedia definitely was not the first place I read it, so if we're wrong – everyone is! Bubba hotep 20:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [I first heard it on the cover of the R.E.M. album and I don't think they invented it.]  -MrFizyx 05:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But this is Wikipedia, where verifiability is more important than truth. So if most people agree that it the proper term, then around here it's right. ;-) What is that writer trying to say? It's not the ban's eponymous record, but the record's eponymous band? What a useless word! -Freekee 01:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be better for y'all to spend time sourcing the eponym article?  Why does it matter which adjective is chosen by editors?  I might like to use "self-titled" and "eponymous" at different points in the same article.  So what? -MrFizyx 05:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our audience speaks various flavors of English and have various levels of comprehension of English. We should use language that is readily understood by as much of our audience as possible. Eponymous is pretentious and gives no hint to its meaning for those who have never seen it before, which is likely a sizable group considering the term is restricted to the popular music press. Self-titled, by contrast, is made up of simple words, so those who have never seen it before are likely to pick up its meaning quickly. As for the suggestion of using both in the same article, see elegant variation. Yes, this is a lot of discussion for one word, but there are more just like it—gig, for example, when concert is available. Perhaps we should make a usage guide for the project. Punctured Bicycle 06:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no word is innately "pretentious", and as noted above, "eponymous" has been in use for absolutely years to describe albums – to the extent that, i'd wager, anyone interested in consulting an album-specific project would have an inkling what it meant. and if someone doesn't know what a word means, it's only a quick step to a physical or online dictionary. Failing that, we have a Simple English wikipedia too tomasz. 09:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You sure you're not mistaking this for Simple Wikipedia? Warning to non-proficient English speakers: a dictionary may be required. --kingboyk 10:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, so I haven't actually used both in the same article, and I agree that "self-titled" is more clear and tend to use it more often (as in my article on Joe Ely).  My point is that we should not unreasonably place restraints on editors' language.  I see this as a non-issue.  When someone reads the word "eponymous" in the first sentance of the article on Lyle Lovett they are likely to get the meaning from the context even if they have never heard the word previously.  If they don't, they can follow the link and read the eponym article which gives a full explanation.  I don't see the need to target the lowest common denominator at all times.  I suppose our prose would not suffer greatly if we stuck to things like "second album" instead of "sophomore release", but I don't see the need for tying editors hands given the state of most album articles.  Almost any content is good content compared to a track listing and an info box. -MrFizyx 19:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sophomore is an alien word to us British types, so whilst I have no objection to you folks using it (isn't that big of me?! ;)) please not in articles about British albums :) --kingboyk 20:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not alien, just that it has fallen out of common usage in British English, so to British ears sounds quaint and old-fashioned, in the way some French-Canadian expressions might be to the French.Ricadus 20:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I daresay you're right, although it doesn't sound old-fashioned to me, just... foreign. Anyway, never mind, we digress, and I'm pretty sure "sophomore" has been discussed here before. Thanks for pointing that out. --kingboyk 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If suggesting that editors use clear, plain language whenever possible is an unreasonable restraint, then all the conventions listed on the project page are unreasonable restraints. By the same reasoning we should delete all guidelines and style manuals, allowing the editor to run wild. Ignore the cost to the reader; most people don't mind random visits to the dictionary to decode obscure jargon (never mind that many dictionaries don't even contain eponymous in the relevant sense). Of course, our largest common denominator will not have any problem to begin with, as most of the English-speaking world reads Mojo and Q. Right. Punctured Bicycle 04:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're into albums past, then possibly they do. If not, they look up the word once and will know what it means in the future too. It's called learning. --kingboyk 11:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you have no problem with the sentence "The KLF absolved their collation of aural transcriptions Chill Out in the year of the Metal Horse," then. Punctured Bicycle 21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the problem with that is it's a deliberate attempt to be unclear about a whole sentence to make a point, as oppose to a take-or-leave-it choice regarding one usage. tomasz. 10:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no problem. Anyone can look up the words. It's called learning. Punctured Bicycle 20:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: disingenuous in the extreme. tomasz. 08:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each word in the sentence I gave was a choice regarding usage. As the sentence illustrates, some choices are better than others. Self-titled is better than eponymous in the same way that released is better than absolved and album is better than collation. You can't just argue that readers can look up any word in the dictionary, because that means it's OK for editors to use obscure words like eponymous and absolved and collation when much clearer alternatives are available. Clearly it isn't OK. Punctured Bicycle 19:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "By the same reasoning we should delete all guidelines and style manuals, allowing the editor to run wild." i believe this is called "reductio ad absurdum" tomasz. 12:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Punctured Bicycle 21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that isn't a point in your favour, you know. tomasz. 10:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reductio ad absurdum is a common form of argument. If you want to make a point that isn't in my favor, you'll need to say more. Punctured Bicycle 20:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: common but no more valid. tomasz. 08:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument form. Punctured Bicycle 19:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: erm, no, it's a logical fallacy. tomasz. 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eponymous vs. self-titled

message: I have proposed that LP album be moved to LP. Please see Talk:LP_album#Requested_move. --kingboyk 12:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[LP album]] 

message: I have just noticed that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debut album resulted in a deletion and a redirect to album.  This seems inadequate for anyone seeking the meaning of "debut" from the many articles linked there.  Anyone care to suggest a better redirect?  Is it worthy of a deletion review?  Or should we just force everyone to say "first album" from now on? :-) -MrFizyx 20:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Perhaps a link to wiktionary:debut might be in order if you think there are readers who don't know what "debut" means? --kingboyk 20:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't "debut" just a plain English word? Jogers (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort-of.  Derived from the french, debutante, but not retaining any of that meaning in the context of albums.  I'd be fine with a wiktionary link or someone fixing/removing links. -MrFizyx 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe we should have a music-journalese patrol task force. –Unint 22:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should "outlaw" the use of debut album... It's a term commonly used in that context, and we aren't the Simple English Wikipedia. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "debut", "jargony"? jesus wept. tomasz. 10:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I could easily remove these links with my bot. Do you think it's a good idea? Jogers (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove them altogether do you mean? Hmm... Perhaps we could be a bit smarter than that, perhaps we could remove all links to debut album and debut album (note 2 words, seperate links; a list of articles pointing to both pages can be easily made in AWB)? Also, the process should always leave behind one link to album. I'm just a bit concerned that only removing debut album without ensuring there's a link to album would result in some articles not having a link at all. --kingboyk 11:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should there really always be a link to album? Sounds like another common English word. Most album articles should already have a link to studio album, compilation album etc. in the infobox (which reminds by of User:Jogers/List3, by the way). Jogers (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They probably ought to have a link to one of those, yes. Consider my proposal amended :P --kingboyk 11:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. -MrFizyx 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to my mind, no. Interesting? Undoubtedly. Encyclopedic? You haven't convinced me (yet). --kingboyk 21:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My own apprehension is that even if one were to do a "good job," the article would become a taget for editors looking for a place to put links to that article they just wrote on artist X's first album.  Turn the bots loose then I suppose.  -MrFizyx 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Am I still allowed to say that Album X is the debut album from Artist X" in the body of the article? I actually think the word debut is pretty well established in the english language and I do like to use it instead of first. Thanks Solonyc (talk} 21:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are :-) Jogers (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Me too, and yes, you may use your editorial discretion :) All this bot job is doing is removing the link. --kingboyk 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  debut album