Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 12

message: I've just compiled the list of few hundred album articles without cover art but containing a link to All Music Guide which usually provide a cover. Would anybody like to help with making a first step in clearing :Category:Albums without cover art? Jogers (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, Jogers, here's the thing: you know normally I would be straight on things like this, but the fact is I can't access All Music from where I am now so usually have to wait until I get home to do it. But I have been gearing up to do this for a while now and hopefully will be able to help soon. :) Bubba hotep 11:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I knew that I can count on you with this :-) Jogers (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason for that is by the time it takes you (or I, or anyone come to that) to add an image to an album article, at least five new articles have been created, a further five have been found not to have a tag and/or image, and yet a further five have been found not to have an infobox. They are not scientific figures, I may be exaggerating, but that it was I summise by watching the figures closely every day! Bubba hotep 08:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album articles without cover art 

message: I thought I'd ask for help with something that caught my eye recently.  This list of missing albums contains important  (as defined by the WP:MISSING project) albums that are still red linked.  And, well, it's almost kicked, just 10% remains.  I just added Lambert, Hendricks, & Ross! and thought maybe with some teamwork we could finish off this list, since there was no current collaboration.--Fisherjs 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Man! That is still a list-and-a-half... as usual, will fit in with the other pending tasks (inc. Jogers' above) :). By the way, have you noticed just how many badly sourced, badly formatted, just badly album articles there are out there at the moment? We have work for life on this project, I think! Bubba hotep 22:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You bet! :-) I'll try to help with the list after I'm done with the one above. New current collaboration scheme is good. Jogers (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm on it too… This could take some time! :) Alex valavanis 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New collaboration

message: I asked before about whether people would be interested in a cleanup resource of albums lacking a by-year category, or a by-artist/genre category, but not necessarily completely uncategorised.  As you seem to be seriously on top of things as regards getting rid of the latter, I wondered if this would be a good time to float the former pair again.  If people are in favour, I could populate a chunk of each into categories called  and , or something to that effect, and see how those go down.  Or even just into the uncat-album, via a distinct template, or whatever people would prefer.  Alai 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This brings a consideration: we can use the infobox to categorize some stuff. In example, if the infobox has no image, it is categorized as :Category:Albums without cover art. However, we could easily detect whether the infobox needs label, producer, length, release date, format, and maybe reviews, and categorize accordingly. So, an album could belong to four or five maintenance categories. This would render some columns at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums/Incomplete infobox unnecessary too. -- ReyBrujo 05:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Alai, by-year and by-artist cats would be good, but I don't think a missing-by-genre cat would be all that helpful, since it's not as common to include that in the first place. Oftentimes, a genre seems more appropriate to include on the artist albums cat. Or at least that's where I most often find it. -Freekee 06:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say by-genre or by-artist since the artist cats are in genre supercats, and of course, may not exist yet for any given artist.  So I'm essentially hedging my bets on how these might be handled, not trying to suggest that they should contain a genre category directly.  (I'm not sure it's a great policy myself, since it leads to lots of singleton categories, often doesn't seem to happen, and assumes that a whole career can be assigned a genre as readily as a single piece of work, but I'm not here to agitate about that.)  I'd be happy with a different category name, or a piece of canned text on the cleanup page, if it would help.  Alai 06:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it possible for a bot to pull a year out of the infobox and apply a category? -Freekee 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be more straightforward just to have the infobox populate the category?  Alai 07:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that's problematic because there might be "non-standard" text in the released field.  I suppose I could put in a bot-task-approval-request for populating by-year and by-artist categories.  However, clearly many of the affected articles don't have infoboxes...  Alai 16:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partially categorised albums -- maintenance cats 

message: Anyone with bot skills able to produce a dump/list/category of articles that have (some version of) the  template on the talk page and an article which is simply a redirect?  I just added the template to this talk page and then realized the article should be a redirect to the article with a capital "C".  Doesn't really matter much except in our count of how many articles there are in :Category:WikiProject_Albums_articles.  Is it worth going after these talk pages and removing the template?  I do kinda wonder how many exist.--Fisherjs 19:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the first time I ever see something like this. Why didn't you just move the page? Jogers (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Forget it. I know why. It would be interesting to know but unfortunately I don't know how to get a list of redirects. Jogers (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me double-check if I follow what you're wanting here:  article page is a redirect, talk page isn't, and is in ?  That do the job?  Alai 06:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is what Fisherjs is alluding to. It would give a false figure. Any redirect pages I have come across, I have removed the  tag from the talk page, but there may be a few hundred left out there. Bubba hotep 08:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is what I'm thinking, Alai.  Could you produce a list?  And in these cases should we redirect the talk page to the new talk page or just simply blank the old talk page by removing the  template and anything else on the page?  Alai, could you simply make the change yourself while you have your bot there?  Doesn't seem to be any real need for a brain, after all. --Fisherjs 08:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, here's a list from the late-Jan db dump:  User:Alai/albumredirs.  Note that some of these might be better moved to, or merged with, the talk page of the article's target, depending on the content of both.  Given that this requires looking at three pages (including the article page, to check it's still a redirect) it's not completely trivial to do by 'bot:  it'd require some coding, and the traditional faffing about at WP:BRFA...  Might be simplest to do this AWB+talk-page plugin, perhaps?  Alai 09:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiosity - how did you make the list from the database dump? Jogers (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An SQL query.  Specifically, this SQL query:  select a.page_title from page as a, page as t, categorylinks where a.page_title=t.page_title and a.page_namespace=0 and t.page_namespace=1 and a.page_is_redirect and not t.page_is_redirect and t.page_id=cl_from and cl_to='WikiProject_Albums_articles';  Alai 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I'll have to learn SQL, then :-) Jogers (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't feel that redirects should have templates on their talk pages. Or anything at all. -Freekee 03:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another thing To Do?

message: A section called "Special lists" has been added to the category summary. Let's hope we all remember what they are! Bubba hotep 10:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to category summary 

message: Hi. People are starting to put future releases on discographies. Just saw one that said "On March 23rd, 2007, Frontiers Records signed and released" which is incredible to say the least. We all know that many an announced album have been canceled or delayed in the past. Do we need to state this in policy? I know it's common sense but I am seeing it more often. Has anyone else noticed this? Thanks Solonyc 01:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Split Enz entry includes a 2006 album, Rootin Tootin Luton Tapes, in the discography; when you open the link, it appears to be nothing more than a proposed album with a suggested track listing. I've been scratching my head over what do to with this .... move the whole entry into the band's talk page until it's released, perhaps? Grimhim 02:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ... And then I thought, let's delete the infobox, rewrite the article to reflect what the Rootin Tootin Luton Tapes really is -- demos from a set of recording session  -- change the "tracklist" to a list of songs that may possibly be included, delete the category (it's not a Split Enz album at this stage) and add the word "proposed" in the band's discography. One issue, however: what category should the article be? Grimhim 05:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future releases 

message: A category page was nominated for deletion. See here. Meanwhile, something is messing up :Category:Album stubs, and therefore our own project page. Can someone who is Wikicode savvy please take a look and shee if you can fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freekee (talk • contribs) 05:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Alex has fixed it. Bubba hotep 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messed up stub list 

message: As I've been whittlin' away at the redirect talk page/album template problem, I noticed another one (which I've fixed when I caught them) - it appears that bunches of the redirect pages were given categories and/or stubs.  Is there an easy way to get a list of any redirect page (or redirect talk page) that has a category or a stub so that we can get rid of those as well?  SkierRMH 22:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, I'm about to reformat that list so it is numbered and not bulleted (easier to update the old category summary, don't you know!) Keep up the good work on that one, Skier, hopefully I will be able to help upon my return to normality tomorrow. Bubba hotep 22:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Should those categories always be removed from redirects? There are instances where they could be helpful in navigation.  -Freekee 23:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Therein lies the problem: I think a lot of redirects are results of implausible typos and should be speedy deleted just to do some general housework. The ones that are justified ("The album of this band" to "The Album of This Band") and serve a purpose: yeah, why not have them share the stub + cat. In other words, I would be deleting "The Album By This Band - 1978 Compilation Album On This Record Label" not just simply redirecting. Bubba hotep 23:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And duplicate articles as well: I nommed for speedy Push (bross) because it already existed in (slightly) better form at :Push (Bros) rather than just redirect. We sometimes need to look a bit deeper to clean up the project. Bubba hotep 23:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a redirect to cover a typo or even a common misnomer, then I don't think it should be categorized. But what about when a record article is not yet written? Or how about a rerelease under a different title? Someone might own that record and be looking for info about it. It would be nice to put that title on a list. -Freekee 00:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I hear and obey!  User:Alai/albumcatredirs  47 of them, or specifically, article pages that are in  or a descendant.  Do with them as you will.  Are there other classes of talk-page categories to look for, other than the WPJ one I already looked for?  Alai 01:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, it seems that WP:KLF has created a category exclusively for their redirects; see :Category:The KLF redirects. In fact, :Category:Redirects by WikiProject contains a small but diverse collection of these. –Unint 04:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, I was under the impression that categorizing redirects was encouraged (though this may have been mainly someone from the Beatles WikiProject, which, I notice, created the first of these). –Unint 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but isn't categorization of redirects (such as the KLF example) generally for Wiki editor use, rather than reader use? Cat'ing redirects for public visibility is not very common. -Freekee 04:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the list, Alai. Most of those seem, in my opinion, to be legitimate uses for cat'n of redirects. -Freekee 05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think where there are "deliberate" (or happy accidents), they should probably be flagged up as such.  I think the best way is probably to transclude , which (also) categorises them in .  Alai 19:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another redirect page problem

message: *There is apparently a controversy over at the album Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka, it seems some editors believe the article should be split in two as the re-release was titled "Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka".  I dunno if there is any precedent for this.  If any editors here have any suggestions for the editors of this article, I suggest that they provide it at the article talk page.  Cheers!  Wickethewok 14:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *My, but people can talk for a long time. I can't begin to understand the situation right now, but apparently at the heart of this is the Master Musicians of Jajouka vs. Master Musicians of Joujouka problem. (Which appears to be a dispute over a 4000-year-old lineage.) –Unint 15:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no opinion on the matter in question, but the whole thing makes me wonder if Alai should create a dump of all articles with  on the talk page and ,, or  on the article page.--Fisherjs 15:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I thought albums would be a non-controversial area. Anyone would think they are contesting the naming or politics of a country or people, not an album. Sheesh. Bubba hotep 16:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, Fisherjs, I think that might be a very small list because I'm sure I am right with my assumption that albums are historically non-controversial! Bubba hotep 16:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever number is come up with (and we might be surprised), why not make each of them subcats of :Category:Album articles needing attention? --Fisherjs 19:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it would help to categorise what actually needs attention in the article. If it's a straight forward matter of wikifying, formatting, etc - they can be sorted quickly. Track listings, personnel - not so quick, but still easy enough. And then the expert negotiators can tackle the controversies! Bubba hotep 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka]]

message: Has anyone noticed that the album notability argument has begun again here? Bubba hotep 22:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, I must say, hasn't gone anywhere since. Bubba hotep 19:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole "notabilty" thing is merely a plot to makes us spend even more time in Wikipedia! LOL. Ricadus 00:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album notability 

message: There is a very well known album by Van Halen called Fair Warning that has a page here. There is a not so well known debut album by the band Fair Warning titled Fair Warning that I want to create. The rule says I should name it Fair Warning (album) but would that be confusing to people when searching who aren't aware of both discs and should I rather name it Fair Warning (Fair Warning album)? Or stick with the rule and let them find out on their own. Thanks Solonyc 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To prevent any further disambiguation (another album called Fair Warning in future, perhaps), I think you should call it Fair Warning (Fair Warning album) with a disambiguation link at the top of the Van Halen album article pointing towards it. Bubba hotep 07:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you think? 

message: Work seems to have ground to a halt on the collaboration.  I think it's just too big a task, as creating a really good start class article from scratch takes a fair amount of time and effort.  Personally, I like having a collaboration task which I can dip into whenever I have a few minutes free at work.  
This task has been active for about a week, so maybe we should change it and come back to it again sometime in the future.  I'll put it in the regular task list.  Shall we have a go at shifting the backlog of assessments?  We could collaborate on any of the following for a week or so:
* Assess unassessed articles
* Check automatic assessments
* Upgrade start class articles to B-class where possible
* Add cleanup tags to B-class articles or submit to GA nomination if good enough.
Any preferences, or would anyone prefer to do something else entirely? Alex valavanis 16:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about upgrading stub-class articles to start-class or better when appropriate? Stub-class articles with more than 2000 characters and containing "personnel" or "credits" section seem to be likely candidates so here is the list of them :-) Jogers (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just need winding up and pointing in the right direction! That will do, Jogers. Bubba hotep 21:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would love to see assessment as one of our weekly collaborations. That's one reason I've been pushing to get assessment guidelines written. I think we're good on Stub and Start, but still a bit fuzzy for B-class. Maybe the next collaboration project should be to complete the assessment guidelines. :-) -Freekee 06:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops! So we're not supposed to use the  template for ratings in the info box? I guess I should have read this project page more carefully. I've been going through and fixing links to PitchforkMedia reviews and while I've been at it, I've been using this template. Are we just supposed to put (#/10) instead? Personally, I like the look of the stars. Why are we not supposed to use the template? I've worked on hundreds of articles over the past couple of weeks and hate to think that I have to go back through all of them! Sanfranman59 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you may have a preference for the images, you are misrepresenting the information provided by the reviews. Unless you have the [written] permission from all relevant sources to represent the numerical value assigned to a given review, such modifications are inappropriate. Folajimi 22:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment confuses me.  Can you clarify the concern?  Jkelly 22:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a little confused by this comment as well. Are you saying that if the source article gives a score of 7 on a scale of 10, it's a misrepresentation to put it on a star scale of 7 stars out of 10 in the info box? Sanfranman59 22:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All Music Guide uses stars in their ratings. As has been noted, Pitchfork uses numbers. Both are entitled to use whatever rating scheme they so desire (other reviewers use tick marks.) Using stars, tick marks, or whatever else in lieu of the numbers without the permission of the reviewer is misrepresentation of the actual information provided. Folajimi 23:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Geez ... I had no idea what a complicated business I was getting into here. Since I've gotten so much out of Wikipedia over the last few years, I figured I'd try giving something back. But it seems that I may have actually done more harm than good. I suppose I'll start going back through all the articles I've modified the past week or so and undo my work (do you happen to know if a bot could be written to do this?). When I do, do you suggest that I replace the rating template with a (#/10) kind of format or just leave the rating out entirely? Sanfranman59 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Depending on the current state of the affected articles, a revert might suffice. You could look into alternatives as well. Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 00:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback, Folajimi. The problem is that in addition to fixing the Pitchfork links and adding the 10-star templates, I've been doing what I think are other legitimate fixes and updates to the infobox reviews sections of these articles (e.g, fixing other bad links, putting the reviews in alpha order, adding dates and adding links to AMG, Rolling Stone & Christgau pages where available). So I don't really just want to go back through and undo all of my changes. Sanfranman59 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New collaboration task? 

message: In going through quite a few of these, I noticed that there is a tendency in the Japanese titles/articles to use ALL CAPS.  I don't know if this is a linguistic thing, they're JUST SHOUTING, a translation problem, etc...  A good example of this is SUZUKI AMI AROUND THE WORLD ～LIVE HOUSE TOUR 2005～.  I was going to move this to a more proper capitalization, but if you look at the album cover :Image:M03055427-01.jpg, the title there is in all caps.  
A similar problem is with song titles.  There doesn't seem to be any consistency - sometimes the proper caps are used, sometimes not, even in the same article.  
So, the question is, do we correct these to proper English capitalization, or stick with the SCREAMIN' ALL CAPS? SkierRMH 07:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#English words in Japanese titles says proper English capitalization. In fact, I'm sure there's been much lengthier discussions about this. The problem, on the other hand, is that nobody ever seems to bother to enforce this rule! (And I would suggest that it is completely nonsensical to capitalize album titles based on mere cover typesetting. By that logic, we could argue that, say, The Dark Side of the Moon doesn't have a title at all because there's no title on the cover.) –Unint 08:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names applies here. I see no reason to treat Japanese titles differently. I've noticed the terrible mess in Japanese articles too. Just like Unint said - seemingly nobody bother to fix this. Jogers (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Much thanks for the correct procedures - I wasn't sure which convention would apply here.  Now I'll fix-em up as I find them! SkierRMH 20:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I know, too! Bubba hotep 20:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization in Japanese titles/articles

message: I've just removed about 200 of them. Can we mention in the guideline that they shouldn't be used? Jogers (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  album covers in chronologies 

message: What format should be used for dates of professional reviews in the infobox? I've searched through the discussion archives for this project and haven't found anything. The MOS says to spell the date out, e.g. February 11, 2007. But that doesn't work well for the review dates. I've been using a mm/dd/yyyy format, but recognize that most of the rest of the (non-American) world uses dd/mm/yyyy. Is there a consensus on this? Sanfranman59 02:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we ever discussed this before. What's the problem with full dates? Jogers (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking here about the reviews that are included in the infobox. Using the full date takes up a lot of space and causes each review to wrap to a second line. It seems to me that most people use the American format, but there's a good bit of variation. Sanfranman59 00:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Using American format in articles about non-American albums and vice versa may be problematic though. If we used footnotes instead of embedded citations there would be enough place in references section to provide a full date with reader's date preferences enabled, review's author name and anything else. Jogers (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Consider three letter abbreviations; they are compact enough to avoid the wrap-around, while heading off possible ambiguities. Although redirects already exist for many dates (e.g. Feb 13), others might need to be created for completeness (e.g. Feb 01). --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional review dates in infobox 

message: Am I correct that we are only to use the star templates in the professional reviews section of the info box if the source explicitly uses a star rating system? For everything else, the rating should be put in parentheses after the name of the publication and should be in the same format used by the source (e.g. 7.8/10 or 4/5 or B or 80%), correct?
In reviewing past discussions on this topic (which I now wish I'd done more thoroughly before I edited a bunch of articles!), I think there was some talk of creating a bot that would go through and change occurences of the star templates to text. Is this possible? It sure would save me a ton of work undoing what I've done. Sanfranman59 03:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if the publication uses another system, it should not be converted into a star one. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It could be done relatively easy using AutoWikiBrowser. Jogers (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of stars templates for reviews in infobox. 

message: That's a point, why is this in there? And does anyone use it anymore? Isn't it a bit like the old "needs infobox" we used to have? OMG, have I just opened another can of worms. Perhaps I should have started a new thread? :( Bubba hotep 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That list needs to die.  It should be made obsolete by the idea floated by ReyBrujo at this discussion (to populate the cats based on the lack of data in the infobox).  This requires the help of Alai or someone else with bot skillz. --Fisherjs 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, sorry Rey, wasn't in on that discussion, must have missed it. :) Bubba hotep 21:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete infobox list

message: I have two questions related to At Yankee Stadium, any help appreciated.
1)  Where track length vary between different releases of the same album (LP vs. CD, for example), is there any standard for which lengths to list?  (or a standard way to present multiple sets for different releases of the same album?)
2)  An extra song was added for the original release, omitted from all other versions of the album.  (Kind of an anti-bonus track.)  Is there a standard method to deal with an album whose tracks vary between releases? 
--Skyraider 06:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I've been putting up pages of albums that have Asian versions with bonus tracks. Take a look at one done recently: Human Zoo. I like this way better than putting * or ++ after the song. In the infobox I put the shorter length first followed by the longer time that includes the bonus track in parenthesis. That matches the parenthesis surrounding the Asian releases label and cat number. I think it is pretty intuitive. I'd like to hear some thoughts on it from people. It isn't a standard but maybe something like this could be one day. Take care Solonyc 06:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to see a page where I have omitted tracks instead of adding check here: Clown In the Mirror.Later Solonyc 06:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you did with those two albums is pretty much what I would have/have done, Solo. Bubba hotep 09:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Don't forget to add the  tag to the article talk page! :) Bubba hotep 09:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we are all still learning little tricks and such. I think I still revisit the articles I created six months ago to see (a) if they are still there (!) and (b) to add anything I have since learned. So that's where the ice went? We had it here in England this time last week... and several inches of snow. :) Bubba hotep 15:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track List Questions 

message: By request of Fisherjs, I've cranked out some lists of intersections between the  hierarchy and various maintenance hierarchies, as of the last db dump.  They're all relatively short:
*User:Alai/veralbum verification + albums
*User:Alai/sourcealbum lacking sources + albums
*User:Alai/accuralbum accuracy disputes + albums
*User:Alai/POValbum NPOV disputes + albums
Feel free to modify the lists as you go if you're working on these.  Alai 12:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  What do we think - something for User:Bubba hotep/ALBUM so we can keep track of these?  Also, maybe  would be even the best template to do a search on.--Fisherjs 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup lists 

message: I have seen some band article recently that have galleries to present the artist's discography. However, the album name was not boldfaced and italicized, as I am used to seeing, but only italicized.
Is there any convention on this? From what I gather, it seems like it's up to the editor. Personally I think in the main body of the article, it should obviously only be italicized, but on its own in a discography section, bold text stands out much more strongly and I prefer it.
− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon bold would certainly entice you to click the link to the album article rather than clicking the image only to be taken to... the image page. Bubba hotep 23:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography galleries: bold AND italicized? 

message: I have started a vote on the blink-182 article regarding the long term edit war over the bands genre of Pop Punk or Punk Rock. votes can be cast here. cheers --Dan027 07:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you alerted :Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music? Although there doesn't seem to be much life around those parts lately. Bubba hotep 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While not something to go exclusively by, I would tend to go by what All Music Guide has a group listed as, though bands are able to be in more than one genre. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: blink-182 Pop Punk vs Punk Rock vote

message: WP:ALBUM says "In titles of songs or albums, the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that:
# Are the first or the last word in the title
# Are not conjunctions ("and", "but", "or", "nor"), prepositions ("to", "over", "through"), articles ("an", "a", "the"), or the "to" in infinitives.
"
wheras WP:NC says "to capitalize words that are the first or the last word in the title and those that are not conjunctions (and, but, or, nor, for), prepositions (in, to, over), articles (an, a, the), or the word to when used to form an infinitive. Note that short verbs (Is, Are, Do) and pronouns (Me, It, His) are capitalized. Words of five letters or longer are generally capitalized, regardless of their part of speech."
There seems to be an inconsistency in the capitalisation of prepositions of 5 or more letters. So should it be "Live through This" or "Live Through This"? Spearhead 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be inclined to follow :WP:NC as it is probably updated more often and WP:ALBUM's was probably (at some time) copied from there. I may be wrong, but it makes sense to me. Bubba hotep 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have amended this article to bring it into line with WP:NC. -- Beardo 05:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MUSTARD, which I usually defer to, also agrees. –Unint 15:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  inconsistency in capitalisation 

message: I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but should leaked album information be included in an album article? Personally, I don't think it should, since virtually all albums are leaked before their official release date. However, if the leaked album spawns something else, such as the artist pushing up the release date or something of that importance, then I do think it should be included. Any thoughts?  W3stfa11/Talk to me 04:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think any leaking of any kind would have to be supported by the policy on :WP:RS and :WP:V as a matter of importance. For example, a leak reported in a blog or on a board would probably not be worth mentioning as it could be seen as little more than a rumour. However, a more prominent leak on a large music website may be worth a mention. All comes down to the notability of the source, I guess, like anything else. Bubba hotep 11:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 8#"This album was leaked". --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm almost certain it is. "Propaganda" leaks are commonplace. Wikipedia is rife with spam (although there are a lot of good people doing some excellent work to counter this). As long as :WP:RS is followed, there shouldn't be a problem. Bubba hotep 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: leaked album information

message: A different issue on album covers. Is there any policy or guidelines to album covers that show nudity? Does it depend on how much or who? Some original album covers were changed to less explicit covers. I have a couple original covers that I want to put up but I don't want there to be any problems with Wiki taking them off later. Thanks Solonyc 20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Jogers (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, hey, hey! Let me know when they are up, solo! <juvenile leering mode disengage> Yes, what Jogers said. Bubba hotep 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explicit album covers 

message: On the project page track listings are shown as this: 
#"Complete song title" (John Doe, Brian Smith) – 4:23
But that leads in practical reality with links to things like this:
# "Baby It's You" (Mack David/Barney Williams/Burt Bacharach) – 2:38
Which if you are reading it at 3AM on a small screen or a laptop just looks like one big line of blue.
I would propose a change to the following:
# "Baby It's You" – 2:38 (Mack David/Barney Williams/Burt Bacharach)
Letting the time break up the links makes it a little easier to read, helps prevent the mouse from floating to the wrong link and in a full album listing actually lets things look a little more symmetrical. We don't have to start changing all older pages now but if we could make the change on the project page for future releases I think it would be a good thing. I am interested to know what others think. Thanks Solonyc 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is certainly an alternate, though the vast majority of album articles don't have songs that have their own articles; that usually is just the case for popular bands/albums. The guidelines at WP:ALBUMS are suggestions and album articles don't need to explicitly follow them. This is a good suggestion for an unusual case. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A pet peeve 

message: As some of you may know, there's been some discussion regarding the number of WikiProject banners on article talk pages. There are three projects underway that attempt to "reduce the clutter".  The first, of course, is the "small" option - see Small option for more info.  The second is , which hides all the banners in a one-line box.  As has been discussed on that template's talk page, this option has the disadvantage of hiding WikiProject banners, which defeats one of the purposes - to recruit new members.  The third option is , which addresses that issue by reducing each banner to one line (with the option to view the full banner).
Now the reason I'm bringing this up is because adopting this third option requires a small alteration of a WikiProject's banner - to add the "nested=yes" parameter.  I'd like to determine consensus within this project around the change and see if we can move forward with it.  I've put together a sample of your banner with the new option coded in (code).  As you can see, there would be no change to the banner if the "nested" parameter isn't there.  If it *is* there, the banner would be part of the "within the scope of the following projects..." box.
Two projects that have already implemented this option are WP:MILHIST and WP:LGBT.
Thoughts? Concerns? Would going ahead with the alteration be okay? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No WikiProjects have objected, though it has not been widely released yet.  The arguments that have been brought forth on the Template_talk:WikiProjectBanners page are mostly anti-WikiProject. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small alteration to your banner 

message: I have seen some questionable edits made on articles pages and I am not sure if they are vandalism or just uninformed editors (or maybe I have things wrong) so I will put a few questions up here in the near future. I hope no one will mind. I think it may clarify things for me and possibly others too.
My first question concerns internal links. Under the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Track_listing heading the project says this:
::On song linkages: Don't link to a song that has no article unless you believe that the song most certainly deserves an article and/or you are willing to write it. 
Does that also apply not only to songs but to artists, musicians and album titles also? I think it should. I have seen a number of backup musicians, production people and others who I doubt are going to get articles on them (though I think we should wait a while to see if the editor plans to create them) getting linked. 
My personal feeling is that a page littered with a lot of dead links looks confusing and a bit sloppy. Also many dead links get defined by others in different areas so that when we click on them later the person we thought was a drummer becomes a politician of the same name (or some other unsavory profession).
I feel some kind of guideline should be made for this and written on the project page. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks Solonyc (talk} 03:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts are that you should only create links to articles that are likely to be notable.  Personally, I feel that if you create a link to an article, it's good practice (although not essential) to create a stub if it doesn't exist.  It's unfair to class it as vandalism if someone links to an empty page unless it's something ridiculous! - Alex valavanis 03:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I was checking a page that when I created it had no dead links and now it has 5 dead links and one link goes to a totally different person. One of these links "might" be of a notable person but I am not sure of it and could not find much info on her. That's pretty much why I didn't link it in the first place. The others I believe are of non notable people. I agree it is more likely just an uniformed editor but I wanted to get some feedback from people. I am still new here and finding my way so the more info I get the better. I may just redo the incorrect info (there are other mistakes that were made). Thanks for your thoughts Solonyc (talk} 03:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a few personal rules of thumb. I usually test out each potential link manually and only link to targets where articles exist (which can be surprising sometimes), or non-existent articles that are already linked to by a considerable number of existing, in-context links. This is to strike a balance between ensuring only notable subjects are linked and the theory that red links to notable subjects may help encourage articles being created. (Of course, this takes a lot of time, which is why I don't do it much.) –Unint 04:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That sounds reasonable — if they're unlikely to be notable musicians, it's probably worth removing the links.  You could also ask the editor who linked them whether he knows something we don't! - Alex valavanis 10:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am an avid disliker of redlinks and try to eradicate them wherever I see them. However, they do sometimes serve a purpose. Sometimes. I think they do (as Unint says) encourage people to create the article if they feel so inclined (and if it is already properly disambiguated, all the better, just dive in!). However, I never redlink band members or song titles, because chances are they are not notable enough for their own article, and I wouldn't want to encourage people to create those articles because they think someone has almost sanctioned it by providing a ready-made "create this article" link! I sometimes redlink album titles in discographies, but only when I fully intend to create the articles... eventually. Bubba hotep 10:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, I get ya! Wrongly disambiguated links are worse than red-links. A red herring, if you will. Or even more apt, a blue-herring! Bubba hotep 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, blue herring..I'll have to remember that one. Thanks Solonyc (talk} 20:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: I wanted to make a change to the page, but it's probably best to bring it up here.  The page currently uses the link Columbia Records.  However, I know pages for musical artists uses Columbia (see Template:Infobox musical artist).  Would it be a good idea to change the page for consistency?  ShadowHalo 02:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When did that happen? I thought it had always been piped. Anyway, it seems sensible to not have to display "Records" all the time, especially if multiple labels have to be listed. –Unint 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, yes, when I first started creating album articles, I must admit I always used :Columbia Records (example), whereas after having read somewhere about piping the link to omit the "Records" part, which I find makes more sense aesthetically, I always pipe now. But I'm sure I read it here, and like Unint, thought it had always been piped! Bubba hotep 10:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting record labels 

message: While working on a certain album-related article (:Withering to Death.), I was wondering, since we already do away with stylized capitalization and apply title case, how to deal with a period (or punctuation marks in general) at the end of a title. - Cyrus XIII 07:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it's best to copy it from the album. If it includes a full-stop, include it in the title as well. Otherwise I don't see any point in including one at the end. Spearhead 10:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, being a Japanese album, it may fall under the formatting anomalies mentioned in this thread above. Bubba hotep 10:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's from Japan, no outlandish text formatting will surprise me anymore. There is actually a band named :Kagrra, - yes, the comma is supposed to be part of the name. I was thinking of moving those articles at some point to less stylized counterparts, but when it comes to pop culture there's usually fierce opposition from fans to be expected. - Cyrus XIII 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that both All Music Guide and IGN don't add the period at the end of the title. Jogers (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuation marks at the end of an album title 

message: I have nominated :Category:Self-titled debut albums and :Category:Eponymous sophomore albums for deletion. If you are interested, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Self-titled debut albums. Tinlinkin 10:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also nominated :Category:Eponymous albums for deletion.  Dr. Submillimeter 12:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album-related categories for deletion