Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 21

message: I've written many album articles and wanted to raise a point that always bugs me: I don't think "Personnel" is the correct word to use as the section title. In the articles I've written I've generally used "Performers" instead because that's really what the section is: a list of who performed what instruments/vocals on the album. The other information about studio contributors (mixers, engineers, cover artists, etc.) I usually put in a section immediately after titled "Album information" which also lists recording/engineering/mixing dates & locations and other such pertinent info from the album's liner notes. I realize that if you're listing both performers and studio contributors in the same section then "Personnel" may seem like a better title, but it just doesn't sound right to me. It sounds like we're describing a military operation or something. According to Wiktionary, "personnel" are "employees [or] office staff," when what we are really listing in this section are "performers," who are "one who performs for, or entertains, an audience." Basically I'm bringing this up because some other members of the project have changed the section title in some articles I've written to "Personnel," even though the section only lists the musicians. It's mainly those cases where I feel that term is incorrect.
Perhaps a decent way to deal with this be to use ==Personnel== or some other agreed-upon term as the overall section title, but then to have subsections for ===Performers=== and ===Studio contributors=== within the same section?--IllaZilla 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that including only musicians is acceptable for start-class articles, while B-class articles must include technical personnel as well. See WP:ALBUMA#Quality scale. For reference, the discussion that led to "Personnel" being chosen is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 17#Standardizing the credits section header. --PEJL 16:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm against using "Personnel" as well, it's such an ambiguous term. For album articles I work on I use "Credits" and then use  the subheadings "Musicians" and "Album production" to separate performers and the non-performing people behind the album. I think this is more clear because most albums (and other media such as movies, video games, etc.) use the term "Credits" when referring to the part in the media where you can see the information about who did what on the album or video. --Leon Sword 00:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very very bad idea to go off on your own creating your own private standards.  If you dislike the current standards, you should lobby to have them changed, rather than inflicting more unprofessional-looking inconsistency on Wikipedia.  That said, I have no preference on the terminology, but would like to point out that changing from the current standard will require changing thousands of articles.  Is it really that big a deal?  I suppose we could try to recruit a bot if there's a strong consensus to change.  Xtifr tälk 11:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely with Xtifr. --PEJL 11:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself think they should be separated and did exactly that on an album yesterday which I see I must now go and standardize. :) The idea of changing thousands of articles is not fun. Can bots really do that? </technologically clueless> --Moonriddengirl 12:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, bots can do that, and fairly easily, at least within certain limits (anything that involves making an intelligent decision or distinction is going to be beyond them).  But for the most part, we have quite a bit of leeway in discussing changes here.  Xtifr tälk 20:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As seen in the archived section, I prefer "Personnel," and I certainly don't think it sounds impersonal. While I think our rules should be given deference because we've had a lot of people look at them, and also because standardization is a good thing, they shouldn't be seen as straitjackets. I would say that some of our rules are more important than others, and this is one of the less important ones. -Freekee 22:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I'm glad that you bring it up in the first place. We are always open to possible improvements. And if the community doesn't agree with the proposed change, it gives us a chance to explain why the rules are as they are. -Freekee 22:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow? What the-? I make one comment about a preference and suddenly you guys jump on me like I have violated some Wiki policy. I too would like to point out that wikiprojects are not policy makers and all the "guidelines" we set here are optional. You know suddenly I feel like quitting this Wikiproject if such an attitude is what I get for participating in it. By the way, I never said I wanted to change the current guidelines the wikiproject follows. --Leon Sword 04:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Consensus is official policy, and guidelines are determined by consensus.  Guidelines can change because consensus can change, but they're still reflections of consensus.  When you blithely ignore the only consensus we have so far to set off on your own to apply your own private standards, without any attempt to discuss whether the current consensus is appropriate or justified, that is against policy.  If you want to get picky and technical.  On the other hand, you are here, discussing the matter, so that's all to the good.  As I said before, I don't care what terms we decide to use, but I do care about consensus and consistency and the five pillars.  If you want to change, and you're willing to come here and discuss it, that's excellent.  If you want to change, and don't care what anyone else thinks, and are determined to do your own thing no matter what consensus may arise, that's bad.  If you really don't believe that you're able to go along with whatever consensus may arise, then perhaps you're not temperamentally suited to be editing Wikipedia at all.  But I hope that's not what you meant, and it's certainly not what I intended to imply.  (p.s., I'm not a member of this project, but I still try to follow its guidelines.)  Xtifr tälk 05:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: With your reasoning you have just promoted all guidelines and wikiprojects to policy. Yes, Wikipedia:Consensus is an official policy but you're misusing its definition. Anyways I never set out to "blithely ignore the standards here and apply my own private standards" I was not aware that this wikiproject preferred "Personnel" over anything else, until I noticed this section in this talk page. However, now that I'm aware of this "guideline" I still think "Credits" is better for the simple reason that it's a common standard in the real world. --Leon Sword 05:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not trying to promote guidelines to policy.  I think we're all aware of the differences.  I'm simply pointing out that they're not entirely "optional" because they are grounded in policy.  Anyway, I obviously read too much into what you said originally about your editing—if you were unaware of the guidelines at the time, then your behavior was beyond reproach.  Nevertheless, now that you are aware, discussing the standard rather than ignoring it is the right thing to do, as I pointed out.  And since that is what you're doing, everything is copacetic, and everybody should be happy.  I know I am.  As for your proposal, I think it sounds reasonable, but I suggest that you contact the people who formed the previous consensus to see if they might be willing to change their opinions.  Cheers, Xtifr tälk 09:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that I wasn't trying to suggest that anyone was ignoring any guidelines purposely, just that it would be a bad idea to do so. Like I mentioned in the previous discussion, I think the term should be standardized, but have no strong preference on which term is chosen. As I wrote there, "Credits" and "Personnel" are the two most commonly used terms, so using one of those will mean less work with updating articles. Since this was standardized to "Personnel", I've updated quite a few articles to use that (from "Credits", "Performers", "Musicians", "Line-up" and others). I have no problem with changing "Personnel" to something else, if there is consensus to do so. We should try to avoid changing standards back-and-forth too much though. I'd also like to point out two arguments made in the previous discussion in favor of "Personnel". Firstly that it makes it clear that only persons should be listed, not studios and companies. Secondly that it makes it clear that persons should be listed first, rather than last. As what "sounds better" is often quite subjective, I give these types of arguments more weight. --PEJL 07:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ho-hum. As I think I said last time the issue of this wording was raised, I don't lose a lot of sleep over the section title used, nor about the wording being consistent across all articles. That said, I prefer Personnel (for similar reasons to those PEJL has articulated above) and I prefer articles to be consistent. If we are to change from Personnel, I'd support Credits as the best alternative - Performers is inappropriate for a section that can include technical/production roles. If we were to standardise subheadings underneath Personnel, I'd probably go for Musicians and Production ("Album production" is redundant, the article's all about an album). But from a practical point of view I'd recommend against changing from Personnel - it seems quite satisfactory to me. And if there was a new standard adopted, I'd hope a bot can be used to implement it - I for one can't see myself volunteering to change a few thousand articles, there's more important work to do. Cheers, Ian Rose 09:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Musicians" and "Production" seem like good choices, if we are to standardize the next level. "Production" already exists in quite a few articles. So does "Additional personnel", which seems less appropriate as it is longer yet devoid of meaning. Hmm, perhaps "Performers" would be better than "Musicians", as the former more obviously includes vocalists. Isn't "Personnel", "Performers" and "Production" a nice combination? On the other hand "Musicians" might be more widely understood. Like I said, I have no strong preference. --PEJL 10:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinctions aren't always clear, and sometimes people may fit into multiple roles (as with a performer/producer, probably the most common example).  Also, if we're going to subdivide it, we're going beyond the bounds of what a bot can do.  For both those reasons, I think it's better to stick with a single section, or at least make subsections optional.  There's also a question about programmed digital effects (which may be added by either the producer or by musicians)--is that performing?  Or production?  With modern digital production (and with some older non-digital production), the distinction between musicians and producers can often be blurred.  Xtifr tälk 11:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it matters enough to hire a bot for the task. Sounds like a change it only if you happen to be editing the article anyway kind of task. And I don't think it's a problem to have people listed in both the performers and production sections. Is it okay to put album cover artists in the production section? -Freekee 15:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what about people where it's unclear whether they belong in the performers or the production sections?  As with digital effects?  Also with sampling and remixing, the borders between production and performance are increasingly becoming blurred in a lot of modern music.  Xtifr tälk 20:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer not to use headers to separate the lists, partly for that reason. I usually just use bulleted lists separated by a blank line. If I feel the need to combine them into one list, I can just omit the blank line. I can also add another blank line to separate band members from hired musicians. I prefer a little flexibility here. -Freekee 05:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's unclear in which section they belong, either should be fine. I'd prefer either using a single list or multiple lists in separate subsections with subheadings. Using subheadings will make it easier for a reader to find the information they are looking for in general, even if we account for cases when the grouping is unclear. This will hold especially true if we standardize the headings. --PEJL 05:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to agree with you.  Why should the section be limited to individuals?  In a lot of cases, the entire band will be credited with production, but I don't think it's appropriate to change that to listing each member as a producer if that's not what the credits on the album say.  Further, if credits for production or editing or mixing or whatnot are given to a company, I don't see any reason we should leave that out.  In many cases, producers or editors are credited as a company when it's really a one-man operation.  I think we should just include the credits, call them credits, and be done with it.  Xtifr tälk 20:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that using the term "personnel" necessarily limits the listing to individuals only. Companies or groups are made of people. -Freekee 05:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In response to Leon Sword, using "Personnel" to imply to editors the preferred format rather than explaining it in the guideline (which we more or less already do) has the advantage that it conveys the format to those editors who don't read the guideline, which will likely be the vast majority. --PEJL 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Personnel" vs. "Performers"

message: I think lyrics should be added to all pages about an album. It just seems like it makes sense to have everything about the album.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.198.12 (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ALBUM#External links. --PEJL 18:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There are copyright issues regarding lyrics – you cannot publish them (including display on a web page) without permission of the owner.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricadus (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that "should not be linked" is linked to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, which suggests that that would be acceptable. --PEJL 20:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics 

message: It says the date in the infobox should be the earliest known date. So that means you don't add the U.S. release date of Curtis (Sept. 11, 07), instead we add the EU date, Sept. 7, but what are we supposed to do about the article body, still say it was Sept. 7? --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 21:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article body you may mention multiple release dates and explain what region they correspond to. In this case, mentioning at least the European date and the U.S. date in the body of the article seems quite appropriate. --PEJL 05:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Release date

message: Has anyone seen how the Finnish Wikipedia is formatting the albums and songs? There are templates for both album and song. Those templates would be quite easy to adapt also here, wouldn't they? Even I might be able to do that at some time. Lasse 13:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ALBUM#Discography, and note that there are no explicit guidelines for how a discography should be formatted. (Those templates are for discographies, right?) --PEJL 13:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using templates in albums & songs 

message: There is also a very good sample article of an album at the Finnish pages. I found only one other example so far from a project page. Is there a collection of sample pages somewhere that I have not peeked? Please let me know.
Lasse 13:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are currently 20 FA class articles, see :Category:FA-Class Album articles. Will any of those do? --PEJL 14:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sample articles for albums & songs etc. 

message: Hi, I hope this is an appropriate place to post this.  I work with WikiProject Spam and we recently found several accounts spamming musicemissions.com reviews (see the spam report available at this link for the next few days and then in the September archive.)  While we have found some definite spammers there are also good faith additions by long standing editors, so it's clear some people think this link is appropriate in some circumstances.  Do you have any process for watching for this sort of thing - or can you provide advice or assistance in controlling the links that are spam?  Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a list of notable review sources that are commonly included but should not be (at WP:ALBUM#Non-professional). At this page I found the following: How do I become an editorial reviewer? Open up an account on Music Emissions and start posting your fine "user reviews". Once you have reached a certain threshold (25 reviews) a red light goes off in our offices and alerts us that we have a "hot reviewer". Our editors will have a look at your writing quality and if it is above average we will contact you and approach you about being an esteemed editorial reviewer. Start writing. My interpretations of our guideline (at WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews) is that this should qualify these reviews as a professional reviews. --PEJL 10:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen that happen before with less professional sites, where an editor's entire history is adding reviews from one particular site. In that case it's pretty blatant spam, since their only goal on WP appears to be to promote a particular website. My past response has been to leave a polite notice on the user's talk page explaining WP's spam policies and our agreed-upon criteria for reviews, and to revert where appropriate. Also PEJL, my interpretation of Music Emission's criteria as you posted above is that the site will post almost ANY "user review," but only certain people are given the status to post "editorial reviews." In that case I would say that the "user reviews" are definitely not professional and should be excluded, and it's highly likely that those are the reviews being added. --IllaZilla 15:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at any of the reviews from that site, you'll see that the link is always to an editorial review. User reviews (if any exist) are shown below the editorial review, in a clearly marked section. So I don't think user reviews were being added, or can be added. --PEJL 15:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In that case it looks fine, though I'd still guard against editors whose agenda is to blanket WP by mass-adding links to one website, as that's still viewed as spamming. --IllaZilla 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As I noted before, reviews from Music Emissions appear to pass our criteria for professional reviews. We don't have a white-list of acceptable review sources; the sites listed at WP:ALBUM#Review sites are merely examples. Note also the discussion above about moving the review out of the infobox. Restricting the number of reviews does sounds like a good idea, see below. --PEJL 20:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  musicemissions.com spam 

message: In my experience album names that use the artist as a disambiguator generally include the full artist name, include a possible "The" at the beginning. Prompted by the move proposal at Talk:Zeitgeist (The Smashing Pumpkins album)#Moving the page to "(Zeitgeist (Smashing Pumpkins album), I thought it best to discuss the general issue here. WP:ALBUM#Naming just says to use the artist name. I would argue that the disambiguator should be exactly the same as the artist name, for correctness. That would also be consistent with #Artist cats should match article. --PEJL 07:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and really don't see why some people insist on leaving out "The" out of band names like "The Beatles" or moving to the back with a comma like if it was a first name of a person. The band is not called "Beatles" it's  called "The Beatles". --Leon Sword 02:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue varies on a case-by-case basis. For example The Beatles used a "The" in front of "Beatles" on nearly all of their record covers, with only a few exceptions. Therefore the band's full official name is almost always recognized as The Beatles (note capital T). The Ramones, on the other hand, never used a "the" in front of "Ramones" on any of their albums, just "Ramones," so "the" is technically not part of their name. So it would be proper in those cases to disambiguate, if necessary, "Help! (The Beatles album)" or "Rocket to Russia (Ramones album)." Then there are bands like the Smashing Pumpkins, who are inconsistent in whether or not they print a "The" in front of their name or not (the earlier albums didn't, then there were 3 that did, and the new one doesn't). So in those cases I really don't think it matters, or maybe we should go with what's on the individual album covers. I mean, we're dealing with something that only happens rarely, with 2 levels of disambiguation: the album title matches the title of another article, there is an article about another album with the same title, and one of the groups has a possible "The" in its name. Does it really matter at that point, as long as the disambiguation links to the proper article? --IllaZilla 03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album dab should match artist article 

message: This has been brought up dozens of times and I thought our last round of discussions really did the trick.  I have since edited nearly all of my FURs to include much more relevant information consistent with the most recent discussions. :Image:No Regrets (album).jpg is an example of the one I have been using and until now none of the images I have updated have been tagged for "bad rationale".  Can someone please enlighten me on the problem(s) with this rationale so it can be further updated.  Thanks in advance.  (Sampm 18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should ask Betacommand. It's probably his bot malfunction again. Jogers (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw this post and its reply (which is not exactly assuming good faith).  The bot is certainly not malfunctioning, if it is reporting, there may be something wrong, e.g. a typo somewhere.  In this case, the rationale is for No Regrets (album) (which redirects to the disambiguation page No Regrets), while the image is actually used on No Regrets (Andrew Copeland album).  Hence, there is no fair-use rationale on the page for the latter.  You might want to correct this (minor) mistake.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. I wasn't assuming bad faith. Bots make mistakes and I'm perfectly aware of this as Jogersbot operator. Thanks for clarifying the issue. Jogers (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's fine, I know what mistakes bots make, maybe it was me, feeling that things get blamed too easily on User:Betacommand.  By the way, the above scan gave this hit, would that be allowed under our Fair Use Rationale (though that is not my specialty)?  Is only the last image not enough?  --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Use Rationale 

message: SkierRMH is on vacation, BetacommandBot is running, and we have backlog at the list of album covers with disputed fair use claim again. Jogers (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog at List6 

message: Hello everyone! I have just one question about minimal requirements for the films and music albums articles... The story is: in Russian Wikipedia (200.000+ articles) we are working on minimal requirements for the articles about films (here) and music albums (here), basically it's all about the main information which must be covered in each article on film or music release. Background is the following: lots of films and music albums articles end up in ru-wiki on the "Articles for Deletion" page, because: first - there is a plenty of such stubs, second - some users find them too short and do not think that such articles can ever be developed to overgrow the size of a short stub. I was looking for such minimal requirements or criteria for articles about films and music releases in other Wikipedias - a kind of experience exchange. Is there something like that in English Wikipedia? You know anything similar in other Wikipedias? Thanks in advance! (also asked here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films) Alex Ex 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find our standards at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment#Quality scale. If an article meets our standard for Start class, I would hope that it would be complete enough not to be deleted. -Freekee 07:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! And what usually happens with an article which is a short stub for years? Alex Ex 18:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually nothing. --PEJL 18:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Short stubs are often expanded at some point, because it is so easy to grab the record, copy the track listing, list the band members and copy a few more key bits of info into the infobox. It's an easy way to help expand Wikipedia. I think most albums languish in the Start phase. -Freekee 01:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ask for help / exchange of experiences 

message: Are there tools that will automagically pull track lists from freedb?LeadSongDog 04:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I use a script to generate stub album articles from albums in iTunes, including track listings. --PEJL 18:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Track list automation

message: Our guideline is that the infobox fields "Released" and "Label" should include only the original release date and label, and that additional dates and labels should be included in the article rather than the infobox. Despite this, quite a few articles include more than one release date and label. Many articles that do adhere to the guideline include such additional information in table in a section commonly titled "Release history" or similar. To make our guideline about release dates and labels easier to uphold, I think we should recommend using such a section. Thus I propose we include a new section "Release history" between the sections WP:ALBUM#Certifications and WP:ALBUM#External links in the guideline:
:Albums are often released on different dates, on different labels, and on different formats in different regions. This information can be included in a a table. Note that the infobox should only include the first release date and label.
Followed by an example table, based for example on The Beatles (album)#Release history. I'd also like to propose we make a minor tweak to that table, changing "Country" to "Region", to encourage using "Worldwide", "Europe" and similar where appropriate. We could also make references to this section from the release date and label sections of the template documentation. Any objections? --PEJL 19:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sugggest that the text within the table be a smaller size than that used for prose text in articles, as the frequent use of capital letters in titles, country names and catalogue numbers (which are all capital letter height) in that Beatles example creates an optical effect whereby the text appears larger than the general prose text. Also, some albums are going to have very extended release history tables, yet for most readers such tables would only be supplementary information to the general prose of articles. Some tables may need extra columns adding to them (e.g. where there are different language versions, such as Kraftwerk's albums, e.g. Trans-Europe_Express_%28album%29#Release_details), so a smaller text size would minimize the risk of tables clashing with info boxes that are placed aligned-right or running too wide to be viewed in full without horizontal scrolling. Ricadus 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Optical effect? That seems very subjective. The text seems just as large as normal prose to me. On the other hand smaller text would look smaller, implying lesser importance. Tables using class="wikitable" have a default formatting that is generally considered appropriate for tables. If using smaller text was generally considered appropriate for tables, that's what class="wikitable" would generate. Note also that changing the font size is discouraged per WP:MOS#Formatting issues, and that chart information tables and track listing tables both use normal table formatting per WP:ALBUM#Track listing and WP:CHART respectively. In fact I think the example you provided would be improved if it used class="wikitable" and proper table headings. --PEJL 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea. Certainly clearer than prose in cases of albums with long and complex release histories. Not necessary in all articles though, especially if the album's only been released once or twice and this is already expressed in prose. --IllaZilla 22:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. --PEJL 14:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new section: Release history 

message: There are lots of album covers (among other things) sitting in :Category:Disputed non-free images as of 13 September 2007, which are in the process of being deleted.  I'd appreciate any help adding/improving fair use rationales for the covers which are being properly used.  Remember you can only use album covers to illustrate an article or lengthy section about the album.  i.e. you can't use them in lists or galleries, and you can't use them to illustrate an object/person whose picture is on the cover.  :Template:Album cover article rationale may be useful! Papa November 09:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: gahhh, this is rubbish. i will join with you in trynna save some of these. tomasz. 11:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also the list of album covers with disputed fair use claim. Jogers (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll lend a hand. I replaced one yesterday that was not only disputed in rationale but also much too big. --Moonriddengirl 17:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, it's on the list--:Image:Cherry Pie.JPG is gone, but the article Cherry Pie (album) is now using :Image:Cherrypie.jpg. I don't know if I should delete the redlinked or not. --Moonriddengirl 17:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loads more album covers under threat! 

message: I just come to know that tour pages are unassessed. What proper template should be added? BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs)  09:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to raise this in this talk page since Tours are very much related to music especially albums. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs)  09:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably more appropriate discussion on the WT:MUSIC page, since tours and albums are autonomous entities (as sometimes, a tour may be in support of an album, though this isn't always the case). Maybe a taskforce of WP:MUSIC could be put together to tackle the subject? Just a thought, but nevertheless, not really the right topic for discussion here. --lincalinca 09:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok. Thanks for that. I'll ask same thing to WT:MUSIC. (talk•contribs) BritandBeyonce 10:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment on Tour pages 

message: I think REAL music fans should start a protest to have Wikipedia remove Robert Christgau's reviews from album pages.  Unlike Rolling Stone and All Music Guide, Christgau's reviews are very biased and pretty useless to people who want a properly critiqued opinion.
This is what he has to say about Paul McCartney's masterpiece "Band On The Run": "The instrumentals are doodles, the songs demos by a man who scores the occasional hit only to prove he's genius. Which he isn't."
I'm assuming he's jealous of the fact that McCartney's album outsold all of his hero John Lennon's albums.  Lennon, by the way, is pretty much the only person Christgau gives perfect reviews to.  I'm a big fan of Lennon's music, but like most fans, I can actually admit that a lot of his solo stuff was absolute crap.
Here's what he said about 8x platinum album "Core" by the Stone Temple Pilots: "the whole band should catch AIDS and die."
If that's his opinion, fine.  But I don't see how it helps out people that are curious about the ACTUAL MUSIC ON THE ALBUM!
Pearl Jam's "Ten": "in life, abuse justifies melodrama; in music, riffs work better"
How exactly does that help me figure out what this album sounds like?  Oh wait, it doesn't have to.  Because 3/4 of this album is STILL PLAYING ON POPULAR ROCK STATIONS!!!  THAT'S RIGHT, POPULAR!!!
The Doors' self-titled album: "Jim Morrison sounds like an asshole."
Aerosmith's "Pump": "If fried brains is your idea of a rock dream"
And finally, Elton John's "Yellow Brick Road": "this is one more double album that would make a nifty single."
Once again, thanks for the opinion, but that doesn't help anybody at all.
Look up your favorite album, if it's not one of Lennon's, prepare to see it trashed with no reasonable explaination.
I say we remove all of Christgau's review's from Wikipedia.  All Music Guide and Rolling Stone are enough and both present unbiased, non-judgemental reviews of albums while giving music fans explaination for their reasonings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphtheman23 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 28 September 2007
:I see the change you made prior to this proposal was this edit. I'm sure we'll all give your proposal appropriate consideration. --PEJL 18:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think AMG is crap and Rolling Stone is unreliable at best. I don't always agree with Christgau, but that's just how things go. I would sooner propose their removal, were it not for the fact that they're so highly regarded. It's deemed broadly that Christgau is also, and as such, his opinion is one that's suitably kept here. --lincalinca 00:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All sources mentioned are imperfect but they all count as professional reviews. Use them all and ultimately people will make up their own minds with the information provided. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert Christgau, whether anyone likes him or not, is a music critic, and a respected one at that, and believe it or not, that is one of the reasons his opinions are well known.  I do not think his reviews should be removed, I do think that readers should have a choice of reviews to select.  There are more than enough review sites out there, and of course they should be taken into consideration.  --Johmbolaya 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Robert Christgau's Reviews From Album Pages 

message: I just added the EP Rímur (album). I'm not sure how to list the chronology section. The chronology of Sigur Rós albums and singles is a little messed up. Should albums and singles and EP's be mixed up? --Steinninn 20:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the chronology links at the bottom of the album infobox? Only albums and EPs should be included there. There is a separate infobox for singles, and singles will have their own chronology. Video releases also do not go in either of these chronologies. (Thanks for reminding me - I intended to fix one of those I found the other day.) -Freekee 04:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  chronology of Sigur Rós 

message: There is something that needs to be changed on this page. The song Hardcore Jollies was played by Eddie Hazel, not Michael Hampton. It is an obvious mistake on the page when the song is referenced in "title track" because Hardcore Jollies is an insturmental. Please change this mistake. Also I appologize for posting under this discussion topic, I have yet to figure out how to start my own thread. --Chiknfulio 11:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardcore Jollies