Talk:Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)

message: :Image:Misterioso.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Misterioso.jpg

message: I made edits that were reverted earlier today. I am restoring them for the following reasons. For track listing, all long-playing records were numbered individually per side; if there were five tracks on side one, the first track on side two was not labeled as #6. Side two tracks start at #1 again. This was true for the entire history of long-playing records, from the time of their introduction in 1948 forward. Track listing should be consistent with original release, and since this is a 1958 LP, that was how the tracks were numbered: 1,2,3 on side one; and 1,2,3 on side two. Exceptions to this were made rarely - usually as a joke or to make some kind of statement. For personnel, if you check every jazz album ever released from the 1950s to the present day, the musicians are always listed first, with the production personnel listed after or even somewhere else in the liner notes. They are never all jumbled in together alphabetically; this is also true on virtually every wiki page for any album of any kind - please check other pages to confirm. For jazz records, musicians are generally listed in order of horn players first and rhythm section second, unless the bandleader is listed first, in this case Monk. The production personnel are listed producer first, then engineers, then those responsible for packaging and artwork. That's the way it's been done for decades, and generally that is followed on wiki pages as well. Thank you. PJtP (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , per Template:Track listing, the track numbers are continuous regardless of side one, two, etc. And per MOS:ALBUM#Personnel (as well as this most recent discussion at WP:ALBUMS), personnel are listed alphabetically; Wikipedia does not follow subjective trends/conventions/whatever. I don't believe every other article follows this convention you're describing, but even if they did, its other stuff. this configuration does not follow the guideline at MOS:ALBUM#Personnel → participants should be listed alphabetically, the participant and their role should be separated by an en dash, role on a specific track is noted parenthetically and with a reference to the track number. Also, a production personnel subheading is not conducive to this album's information, since there are two different releases with two subheadings already. It's simpler and more efficient at displaying the information as it is now, without being overly ornate for the sake of following some dubious convention, which, as brought up at the WP:ALBUMS discussion I linked, isn't universal. Dan56 (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to know one of the things that is wrong with Wikipedia? The idea that a few editors having a discussion on a talk page regarding a subject that they have been encountering for probably not more than a few months is somehow more important than what thousands (if not millions) of people in previous decades agreed upon as a way to present information. The convention I'm describing is not dubious, and it is irrelevant whether or not you personally believe every other article follows it. LOOK AT THE ALBUMS THEMSELVES AND SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION IS PRESENTED. That is what Wikipedia should be following. Personnel credits on jazz albums have been presented the way I describe above since the advent of the LP. I didn't invent this system; it existed from before when I was born. I discovered it from reading the liner notes on the back of albums purchased, as does everyone else. I am reverting the edit back to the correct presentation. PJtP (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You haven't addressed any point I made in my last comment, and have shown an arrogant attitude in all of this, so I have little faith this discussion will get us anywhere. I'm opening an RfC for you, because the correct configuration was the one that passed in the FA review and you should get a consensus for your bold edit (also a consensus at the Project talk page if you insist on pushing this style at other album articles). Dan56 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Btw, "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." (WP:MOS) Dan56 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Track listing and personnel

message: Considering the appearance of each, the guidelines cited, and the arguments made above, which configuration is most appropriate for this article? The one I originally used in the article, or this one recently used by ? Dan56 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Which track listing and personnel configuration is appropriate for the article? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.allaboutjazz.com/news.php?id=96236
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6FUXhqSeK?url=http://www2.concordmusicgroup.com/albums/Misterioso-OJCCD-206-2/ to http://www2.concordmusicgroup.com/albums/Misterioso-OJCCD-206-2/
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6FUXXxQV8?url=http://www2.concordmusicgroup.com/albums/Misterioso-Original-Jazz-Classics-Remasters/ to http://www2.concordmusicgroup.com/albums/Misterioso-Original-Jazz-Classics-Remasters/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified