Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 7

message: Well, but what about Animals Should Not Try to Act Like People and Magical Mystery Tour? Any idea how to standardize them? Jogers (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst that's technically true, Animals Should Not Try to Act Like People should be thought of as a DVD before it is as an EP, as it was explicitly advertised upon release as "the first ever DVD with a bonus CD", as opposed to the norm of it being other way around. Anyway, the point Jogers was making (I think) was that we need (a) standard(s) for visual music releases, preferably without the need of mentioning the medium (VHS or DVD), as this is quite often interchangable. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess we're coming back to the unfinished discussion I have just archived :-) Jogers (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I thought that was your intention. :) MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 13:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, it partially was :-) This issue has to be resolved if we are about to standarize the "type" field ultimately. Is video album a proper term for this kind of release? Is anybody willing to write an article about it? Are we going to use a separate color? Jogers (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, I support hashing out these issues before we proceed, but I think there is no end to the possible variations (see 'Trespass' above). How will these issues affect the work being done by ReyBrujo? In other words, can these issues be addressed with minimal effort after the new template is created? --Folajimi 14:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I split this discussion into a separate section. It may be a good idea to sort this out if we are serious about implementing these changes to the template. Jogers (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should be sorted before the template "goes live", or at least very shortly after. As for video album, I'm not sure. It may just be an English (as in England) thing, but the word video is very strongly connected with video cassettes for me, as in DVDs, laserdiscs and videos. But I can't think of an alternative, so I'll just put it down to me being too picky. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 14:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The CD part was a new EP. The DVD part is a career-spanning retrospective compilation. It all depends on which bit you consider to be more important, with the other bit being supplementary to it. It was advertised with the compilation DVD bit as the main feature and the EP as a bonus, which is backed up by the fact that on the packaging and in the article the DVD's track listing gets top billing over the CD's. But this is largely speculative and not at all helpful, and we can come back to it later if we so wish. The issue at the moment is about video albums themselves. Let's change the example to Greatest Video Hits 1, as it's straightforward enough. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just added the "Animals..." infobox at the sandbox. As you can see, the Type parameter will echo whatever it is written there if it is not a "magic word" it can recognize. In fact, the only modification I did was changing the template from the standard to the Sandbox one, which probes the new template passes the compatibility test with this specific album. We should focus on whether that kind of type (instead of having two infoboxes, one for EP and another for DVD, or to have an extra field for extra types) is accepted or should be considered exceptional. -- ReyBrujo 15:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will it do the same for film scores? --Folajimi 16:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. We just need to change the film theme back to the generic soundtrack, and create a new film score type. -- ReyBrujo 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the difference between a soundtrack and a score should be clear, I can't help thinking that having seperate colours for TV soundtrack, film soundtrack and film score seems a bit excessive. There have been a few films that had the score released as the soundtrack, part two or something, and John Williams' Star Wars sores are always called original motion picture soundtracks, as seen on the album covers in their own articles. Furthermore, where does that leave things like Labyrinth, where it's half Bowie soundtrack and half Trevor Jones score? Just something to think about. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 11:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the same color should be used for all kind of soundtracks and film scores. What about this chocolate "Television theme songs"? Jogers (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon that should be scrapped. We should just use one all-encompassing colour for use by all three types, and just differentiate them by the text displayed in the infobox field. If that makes sense. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 13:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes perfect sense to me. Jogers (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No complaints here. Folajimi 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No problems here as well. We could even create a "super type" like (in example) "Television and film related albums", which may tag albums as needing an album type cleanup, so that others could change the type to a more specific one (soundtrack, television theme songs, film score, etc). -- ReyBrujo 17:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point. Jogers (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case someone knows the album can be broadly defined in those terms, but is unsure about which one, just like categorizing something in :Category:Albums because the user does not know about the subcategories. -- ReyBrujo 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean just as a temporary placeholder until someone more experienced comes along and changes it? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt whether such a specific "super type" would be very useful. I'd prefer it if we recommend to leave the "type" just as "album" in case the editor is not sure about which one to choose so the article would be placed in :Category:Infoboxes with non-standard values. Jogers (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But how about allowing some more specific "soundtrack" values like "film soundtrack", "video game soundtrack" etc? It this case it might be reasonable to categorize articles using the plain "soundtrack" value. I guess it would be more straightforward. Jogers (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW, the All Music Guide considers GHV-1 to be a compilation...  Folajimi 16:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. So, the ¥1,000,000 question is should we just display video albums as if they were audio - just call them "compilations" and "live albums" and use the standard colours, or should we give them their own colours and terms - i.e. "compilation/live video album" coloured purple or something, and if so, what should those terms and colours be? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ReyBrujo suggested that we wait until later. Perhaps we should start picking the different tones/hues we like right now, and just assign them later? Folajimi 16:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather get this sorted soon, as I originally brought it up ten days ago, but there's no reason why it should interfere with the template or anything else. It can just happily sit back slightly as a secondary issue. That being said, in order to properly choose the tones/hues we like, we should decide how many we need to have. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 17:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I suggest discussing everything first. The old infobox has been around for some time, won't hurt it to be a week or two more around. We can, at the same time, listen to suggestions for colour so that both topics can be finished in about the same time. If the proposed infobox maintains backwards compatibility, whenever it is ready, if we have the colours ready, both changes could actually happen as fast as a bot would be able to run. -- ReyBrujo 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah exactly - the new template will make it quite easy to change colours all in one go whenever necessary, so we can definitely keep the colours discussion pending while the new template is implemented.  As I said earlier, this colours discussion is likely to be the final decision on the matter for a good few years at least, so it is very important than incontrovertable consensus is reached between all relevant parties.  Given the number of pages that use the template, it's outcome has the potential to spark many people into mindless compaints.  DJR (T) (WC) 17:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems it was a cache issue, I purged Wikipedia cache and now the page is categorized correctly. Also, I have expanded the unit testing in the auxiliar templates, so don't worry about breaking the template :-) -- ReyBrujo 04:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Great. Any idea for better name of the category? Jogers (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just :Category:Infoboxes with non-standard values? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 08:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or even :Category:Non-standard album infoboxes?  DJR (T) (WC) 00:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is simple and clear. What about the category description? It must say that it's a maintenance category and link to the project's page. Jogers (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's the easy part. As you said, we know what it has to say, and it can be edited numerous times to get the wording right, if needs be. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 11:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's been suggested to use the compilation color for them . Jogers (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, remix could be a possible type. I am one of those who think it is better to have many types than few, as it is much easier to merge types than splitting them. As for the color, I don't have problems with that; at least for now I can't foresee any problem. -- ReyBrujo 16:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Seperate type, shared colour, methinks. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't there an article about types of albums? In example, for the  template, I defined the classes based on the existing character classes plus the most important prestiges classes in the campaign setting. If there is a similar list about albums, we could defined from there which ones to pick. -- ReyBrujo 20:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of such an article. Jogers (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I dunno. Tribute albums are half-way between compilations and cover albums. I'd say leave it as is for now, but I really don't care if it's changed, because it does make sense. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 15:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually cover albums could use the same color as well, don't you agree? Jogers (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They could, but I think that a band covering an entire album (such as Dub Side of the Moon or Petra Haden Sings: The Who Sell Out) or covers recorded with the express intention of being part of an album (such as Pin Ups) have very few elements of a compilation about them. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 15:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. It was just an idea that popped up in my head. I don't mind keeping it the way it is now. Jogers (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Type" field possible values 

message: I suggest creating a new field for the length in the album infobox. While keeping length, maybe adding hours, minutes and seconds so that people could add the values directly, and have some template magic to convert them in mm:ss format. Or, creating an auxiliar template to do that (in example, , which would generate 90:30, while at the same time allowing . I have noticed people prefer writing 1:30:30, 1h 30 min 30 sec instead of 90:30, and maybe having those fields or templates will allow them to write the length in a "human readable" form, while allowing us to change the format with little interaction by just changing the template/s. -- ReyBrujo 20:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this is necessary. Using this field is pretty straightforward and I would prefer it to fix incorrect description in the code itself rather than manipulating the way they are displayed. Jogers (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What's wrong with the 1:30:30 format? I checked the project page and there isn't a standard of any sort mentioned for declaring times.  I know that I personally record the lengths in the format I mentioned.  It might be worth standardizing the proper format of course... If there's already a universal preferred format for "lengths of time" please point me to it. (Though now that I think of it, movies are generally listed as being 110 mins long, not 1 hour, 50 minutes) ~ Gertlex 15:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When in doubt or without a solid reference, I usually check the template to search for hints. The example shows a mm:ss format (77:19, in that example). Also, as you say, movies are given in that format. -- ReyBrujo 16:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Album length

message: If the template far enough along to be rolled out, I suggest that the next course of action should be spectra selection for the legends. That is, unless there is an outstanding issue to be tended to... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 19:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it looks like there are no objections. Does anybody have any suggestions? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 17:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spectra selection, Take #2 

message: A few common issues I want to work out:
* Can we standarize how to display songs that start partway through a track, or multiple songs as part of the same track? This is an issue with:
** progressive rock albums: e.g. Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence;
** more experimental electronic albums, which kind of run in the same spirit: e.g. Dead Cities (album);
** and albums with hidden tracks that aren't their own separate track (many).
** And a special case: what if a CD contains a length of music between two tracks in the track index (i.e. an extended section with a negative track time)?
* Should one-off guest vocalists be credited among "credits" or under individual songs (which I got the idea of from the main project page)? e.g. Chimera (album).
* How do we format enhanced/multimedia sections on CDs? What about multiple non-song items that need to be listed?
* If an album has different selections of additional songs on releases in different regions, how do we list these? As new lists, starting from 1 (even though they're not track 1 on the album)? As lists starting from a higher number (even though list formatting doesn't work that way)? As prose altogether?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unint (talk • contribs) .
Hopefully these answers will help:
*Any track with more than one song is usually handled as a medley. If the same person wrote all the songs, list the medley all in one line like this:
**Medley: "I Heard It Through the Grapevine"/"That's the Way Love Is" (Norman Whitfield, Barrett Strong) - 7:11
*I ususally place the quotation marks around each song, rather than around the entire medley, unless the two songs are often associated with each ther (e.g. "Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In").
*Sometimes, medleys have special names, as yours does. In that case, list it like this:
**Dance to the Medley: "Music is Alive"/"Dance In"/"Music Lover" (Sylvester Stewart) - 12:12
*If you have different composer on each song in the medley, use sub-bullets (this is the way it is done at [Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence]]).
*For hidden tracks, list the songs in the "medley" style, and use footnotes to denote a hidden track.
*List the track time as the song actually plays, not as the time encoded on the CD (which should solve the case of negative time)
*List one-off guest vocalists either with the tracks or in credits, noting which track(s) they were on.
*I don't think it's neccessary to list what's included on an enhanced CD. A sentence or tow of prose included in the article body should suffice.
*The tracklisting on the article should be that in the album's primary region of release. Any songs which do not appear on that version should be listed in a section titled "Tracks included on international versions" or something similar. Don't include tracklistings for each country, because you'll end up with a listy article--FuriousFreddy 03:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track listing display issues 

message: What colour are albums which contain (a) new track(s), but also contain ones from another album, but the new album has a completely new name, and artwork etc.? The album I'm trying to sort is My Number One (album), which contains some songs from an older album; does it count as compilation? -Рэдхот 08:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the reissued material equals or outweighs the new material, list it as a compilation and color it darkseagreen. Otherwise, keep it as you've got it. --FuriousFreddy 03:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I guessed. Thanks! -Рэдхот 15:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rerelease Albums 

message: We get quite a number of these at the translation desk, asking for a translation of the song titles. I am not quite sure how much sense that makes. As a specific example, what should be done with this? Is an article of this form (track list plus one sentence) even worth including? I'd be grateful about any comments, Kusma (討論) 02:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't Chinese have a kind of "romaji" translation? I work with some japanese albums and artists, and we always try to use japanese, romaji and english. Without a way for a casual user to understand at least the meaning of the songs, it is of little use, even if the song is notable. This is a personal opinion, though. -- ReyBrujo 02:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that specific case, while the titles could be transliterated, that is not likely going to help much (does it help you if I tell you that  生命天使 is pronounced "shengming tianshi"?) Actually, the titles in Mandarin and those in Cantonese should be transliterated using different methods (yuck). Translation of somg titles like these without seeing the lyrics can easily produce nonsense, so I don't really want to do it although I can guess what most of the titles mean. Kusma (討論) 02:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that a casual reader may know either the translation or the pronounciation of the album, not the Chinese name, in example, after listening it from the radio. Chinese names (much like Japanese) are not useful, as we can't expect users to know how to write it down. So, we need to give them the other two options left: translation and pronounciation, either with IPA or some other mechanism. In example, T.A.T.u. has album names in Russian, but they (usually) redirect to their english translation. -- ReyBrujo 03:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the translation won't be of much use unless the English translation is in common usage — i.e. findable via Google and so on. If there's no English market for something at all, that could be a problem. –Unint 03:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign language albums 

message: Where does that leave the live albums? — Prodigenous Zee - 11:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually include live albums. But now there's the option of additional chronology sections in infoboxes, you can put in three chronologies if you want to, one only for studio albums, one including live albums and one including compilations. If you really want to, that is. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 12:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. But this one time I realized that someone had changed the next album in an infobox from a live album to a studio album, I quickly went to check this page and it said that only studio albums should be put in chronologies. Also the extra chronolgy would only be too much work. It would be much easier to just put live albums in chronologies. — Prodigenous Zee - 12:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that hard, just go here, copy/paste the code, match up the colour and write something like Live album in the artist field. I've done it on a bunch of singles already, Boys Don't Cry (song) for example. In fact, it probably took longer for me to write this than it does to do it. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 12:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, but how would that work in articles on studio albums? I just don't get it... — Prodigenous Zee - 05:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, maybe that wasn't the best example, what with the extra cover complicating things. Have a look at End of the World (The Cure song), and whereas that chronology is split to show the next European single & next American single, you can do it to show next (or previous) studio album and next (or previous) live album instead. If you're still a bit confused, let me know of a page you're particularly thinking of and I'll show you what I mean. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 09:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of now I don't really have an example. But once again if there is an additional chronoly box, what would go into the middle of the section (this album)? — Prodigenous Zee - 09:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean. I've knocked up a quick hypothetical example at User:MightyMoose22/meh to try and show you what I mean. I'm assuming nobody has a problem with listing studio albums on a live album's chronology. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 09:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I'm talking. Although it might be true that nobody will have a problem with it (even though I have), it's somewhat confusing for the less average user. What's really the problem with just mixing live albums and studio albums in the same chronology? — Prodigenous Zee - 10:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree that the example used at User:MightyMoose22/meh is a bit confusing. The chronology should be easy to follow to the readers and this I'm afraid is not. I don't see much trouble with adding live albums to the chronologies and I guess that they are included in most articles because it's just more straightforward. Jogers (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well like I said up there, I usually include live albums in the ordinary chronology. This was just a demonstration of the possibilities that extra chronologies present and the exploration alternative options. Straying somewhat off topic, but just showing what can be done if needs be. One thing I don't get though, Zee, is that you think live albums should be included in the studio chronology but you say you have a problem with studio albums appearing in a live album's infobox? Or am I misunderstanding? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 12:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounded a bit defensive didn't it? I didn't mean it to. Sorry. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 13:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah, I didn't realize that. I didn't not word my sentences properly. What I have a problem with is live albums not appearing in studio album chronolgies, I have no problems with studio albums in live album chronolgies (I said that before based on the example you gave). (Defensive? No. :) ) — Prodigenous Zee - 14:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, okay. So yeah, I think it'd be best to put live & studio albums in the same chronology and ignore most of this conversation. :) MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 10:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think I've stated this, but it says on the project page that only studio albums should be included in discographies. Perharps a change to also include live albums in be acceptable? — Prodigenous Zee - 11:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about EPs and compilations? They are commonly included as well. Jogers (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, this is where it gets tricky. Where do you draw the line between EPs and singles? Some EPs have four tracks, some singles have six, maxi-singles can have as many as twelve, but they're still counted as singles. As for compilations, I don't know. I'd say not unless they've got more than a couple of new tracks on them, but having said that I'm happy with including all of Cream's because they were all released after the band split up, so they don't interfere with the "real" chronology, if you'll pardon the phrase. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 13:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's starting to get tricky. But due to the fact that I ususally only touch articles in connection with Iron Maiden, it won't be a problem to me. But I guess if you don't know you could just do the edit and refer them to the talk page, on the talk page talk about your situation. — Prodigenous Zee - 00:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Any one else? — Prodigenous Zee - 12:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always put EPs, live and compilation albums in. Non-LP singles no. Singles will sometimes be challenged as NN if they didn't chart. --Fantailfan 13:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are only studio albums put in the chronology section? 

message: I would like some input about a particular issue right now on some Phish album articles.  and  want to make the chronology section go by date of live shows instead of the date of release. For examples the articles involved see the following:
*Phish discography
*Phish: New Year's Eve 1995 - Live at Madison Square Garden
*Phish: Live in Brooklyn
*Undermind
*Live Phish Series
I have had it as going by release year as per guidelines (not policy, though) at Wikiproject: Albums#Discography. I would gladly take any expert commentary on this situation. Cheers! -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 01:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be organized by release date, not by the recorded date. This applies for all albums. --FuriousFreddy 02:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the user is putting "recorded in 19XX" in the chronology field if it is a live album (ie. Phish: New Year's Eve 1995 - Live at Madison Square Garden)). I have only ever seen release dates put in the chronology field, but I was wondering if his edits should be revert back to just the release year. Thanks! -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 19:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with some Phish album chronology

message: I noticed that many pages lack the time info for individual tracks even if they are readily available in other sites. Which I suspect is because the task is tedious for most. I'm just wondering if there is a way to extract track data from databases like MusicBrainz. -- Jared A. Hunt 06:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraction? 

message: I just added The '92 Demos, an album released by Local H in 1999 which was made out of a demo tape the band recorded in 1992. My question is, what album type does this get classified as? I put compilation album as it seemed closest, but I don't quite think that fits. Do we need another classification, or does everyone think compilation album is close enough? Joltman 14:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album of demos classification? 

message: As not many editors are involved in the discussion about the proposed changes to the template I thought it may be a good idea to make a poll so we can find out what are the general feelings. Jogers (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll about the proposed infobox changes

message: # Some more tweaks need to be made but I definitely support this concept. Jogers (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # I love the idea because I like how easy it would be to manage.  I hate the implementation because I have sworn off meta-templates.  You all can decide...  tiZom(2¢) 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: #You might also look at the way :template:LUL line deals with colour.
#It may be possible (almost certainly) to change the template in such a way that the pages don't need to be changed. Rich Farmbrough 22:13 28  June 2006 (GMT).
##How could we use it? 
##Do you have any specific suggestion? Jogers (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Hey folks; I'm not a member of your project, but I'd like to get your input/help on something. I'm working on a minor project. I started the iTunes Originals article to compile a list of all iTunes Originals albums; there previously were only 3 or 4 existing articles for specific iTunes Originals sessions by an artist, with various format names. I standardised those all.
An iTunes Originals release is a 20-35 release available exclusively on the iTunes Music Store (IMS) in the US, and sometimes in other countries. (and occasionally only available in other countries - like several Japanese bands on the Japanese store). The composition of the releases is: roughly half the tracks are spoken word (an interview type segment, but with no interviewer) in which the artist talks about their history, their music, and often the song that is about to be played next. The rest of the tracks are music. Some of the songs are existing album recordings from past albums, and the rest are exclusively recorded for the iTunes Originals. Each one also usually includes an intro track in which the artist speaks "iTunes Originals" - sometimes over a ditty they play (see Jack Johnson, Barenaked Ladies, Jars of Clay - all intros are pretty much listenable in entirety as previous in the IMS). Occasionally the IO's contain video as well - some prior release, some exclusive.
The point of my bringing this up is that I'd like to classify them, possibly in their own category ("itunes originals releases" for articles that are an actual itunes release like ITunes Originals - Death Cab for Cutie, or artists who have released itunes originals for the artist itself. I don't know how categories work really, but since the releases are starting to be tagged as "2005 albums" or something like that, I think it's prudent to make a distinction between this 25 track compilation with narration and a normal album. There are currently 33 such releases, and more coming all the time. perhaps there should be a sub-category under albums for iTunes Originals albums? or a seperate category. Maybe there should be an infobox type for it (like live albums, soundtracks, iTunes Originals...) I don't know; that's why I'm bringing it up to you. Maybe it's not important enough to warrent anything at all. I dunno. Discuss :) TheHYPO 04:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of the NOW! CDs; the difference is that each of these releases is by one artist, and they do include exlusive new recordings of (usually) old songs, though they also include old recordings. I would consider them compilations, though not of old recordings - just of old songs. That's why I think they might garner a category of their own (right now it's just the list that I linked to in the title of this section, that I made). Someone really needs to go through the four or five articles that exist for specific artists' ITO's (all linked on that page) and standardise them. Some consider the albums as 'album' (new albums) - most use the orange colour. Some also put them in the choronological release list of the artist and consider them "the fourth album by [artist]", while I personally think it's a secondary release. I'm mainly interested in the Barenaked Ladies session, whose article I just created. I believe it's a fair model for the article, but I don't have the time myself (or the knowledge of the artist) to edit other originals. I'm also not part of this project, so I don't know what standards to apply as well as some of you might. I know it may not garner it's own colour, though if the new 'type' system goes in, there could probably be an increased number of unique types with similar, but individual colours (such as a slightly different shade of green from compilation for iTunes Compilations, or a different shade for re-recorded compilations like Bon Jovi's latest hits record, or a different shade of teal for live albums that are acoustic, or live albums that are from one concert vs. compiled from various shows, etc... But that's a suggestions for another time. Right now I'm interested in standardizing and organizing the iTunes Originals! Thanks TheHYPO 05:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[iTunes Originals]] 

message: Trying to track down the justification for this WikiProject's prohibition against the YEAR in music|YEAR type of link, all I could find was this (from Archive 6, I believe):
:Why shouldn't we link years like 2003? —Akrabbim 14:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because WP:PIPE says that we should avoid easter egg links (i.e. links "that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on") and explicitly states that "year-in-x" links "should be labeled accordingly, and not with just the year." --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think "year in music" links are even needed in most cases, unless the artist, album, etc. in question actually features prominently in that year's article. –Unint 04:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YEAR in music vs. YEAR 

message: While doing a search for this company, I found that a lot of video game albums have "EverAnime" listed as the publisher. EverAnime is actually a heavy bootlegger of video game / anime soundtracks. There's a lot of information about them around the internet; this is a good start. If anyone wants to take up the job, try searching "EverAnime" and replacing all the album pages with correct publishing information. I'm going to go ahead and start the "EverAnime" article. Thanks.--Zeality 00:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine WikiProject Computer and video games could probably have that done in no time. –Unint 04:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IMPORTANT Video game albums error / request

message: Hi all.  I notice some inconsistency in how the by-decade and by-genre stub tags are being used:  in a number of instances, someone adds  and , and then someone deletes one of them, or else someone tags as , and then someone else replaces this with , say.  It would be preferable, I think, to retain both where they're equally applicable -- that's especially true where some of these stub categories are becoming very large, and double-stubbing is often useful as an indication of how to re-split these, and for we AWB fans, makes the re-splitting itself easier.  Alai 04:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double-stubbing 

message: How are albums released under independent record labels handled?  Is the Label field left blank, or should a piped link to independent record label page be added?
(eg:)
Label | independent (or capitalized?)         -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  23:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a need to distinguish them? I have never considered giving them special consideration or typography. –Unint 05:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent Record Labels 

message: I'm almost certainly alone here, but I don't think "Credits" is a great way to list people responsible for making a record.  I know in a previous discussion on this that "Personnel" was roundly deemed unsuitable - why?  It's a perfectly adequate term for listing the band members, particularly as production staff invariably have their own section, with the consequence that, after a bot went over an album article I wrote, it now has a "Credits" section, and a "Production" section.  "Credits" is too general a term, and to my mind, only suitable for a film or a computer game.
I think it's a bit of a shame that all these articles need to be homogenised so severely, with the result that if you write an article and it doesn't comply 100%, it gets changed, often when the original version made perfect sense anyway.  It doesn't really make one want to write any more. Bretonbanquet 21:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the bands article I have seen divide between current and former members, ordering current ones by instrument, and former ones by departing date. If you haven't yet, check this (third point) for some tips. -- ReyBrujo 22:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that.  I hadn't seen that page.  I was thinking also of band members' order on album pages - any further ideas? Bretonbanquet 22:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this WikiProject is a branch of the WikiProject Music, I would think guidelines stated for Music could very well apply in albums, as they haven't (apparently) been redefined. Maybe later some active member can give you further information. -- ReyBrujo 22:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd just like to clarify that I'm not a bot :-) The mentioned discussion can be found here. I'm stopping to change "Personnel" to "Credits" with AWB until the issue is addressed. Jogers (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, didn't mean to call you a bot  :o) Bretonbanquet 18:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Credits"

message: Well, this matter is controversial. I usually don't touch them but using them like this:   doesn't make any sense to me. Any thoughts? Jogers (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. If people insist on using these, they really should only be used for 5-point scales. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. 1 - NME don't use a 5-point scale, 2 - they don't use stars at all. Using a five star scale for them is entirely inaccurate, seemingly just for the sake of it. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 15:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ooooooohh sorry --Childzy talk contribs 15:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. If they are to be allowed, they should only for those reviewers that do use stars. -- ReyBrujo 16:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stars 

message: The current infobox examples at project's page place pipe characters ("|") like this:
| Name        = 
| Type        = 
instead of placing them at the end like this:
 Name        = |
 Type        = |
This is very good because infoboxes made this way are much less likely to get screwed up by inexperienced users who often don't know what is the pipe character for. However, many pages use the second format. I thought it may be a good idea to convert them while I'm going through album articles with AutoWikiBrowser (see User:Jogers/AWB). I couldn't figure out proper rexeges, though. Does anybody have an idea how to do this? I'm pretty sure that I've seen such edits somewhere. Thanks in advance. Jogers (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dirty solution would be a regexp like s/(Name|Type)\s*=\s*([^\|]*)(\|\s*)$/ -> \| \1 = \2, but I am not sure how to rewrite that for AWB (as I use Vim for that kind of stuff). You will have to type very filed in the first () set, otherwise you may be replacing other places where the user was using = (or if you don't think they will be using it, you can just use ([^=]*). -- ReyBrujo 13:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's almost the same as in AWB but it doesn't seem to work (the (\|\s*)$ part doesn't match). Jogers (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... that is strange. Maybe adding some optional spaces before it. Try removing the $, maybe it does not parses it (or maybe AWB is using it as a reserved variable like $1, and you need to escape it like \$). -- ReyBrujo 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like this: (\|)?\s*Name\s*=\s*([^\|]*)((\|)?\r\n) -> $1$4 Type = $2\r\n almost works. The only problem is that the pipe character may appear in the parameter value (e.g. Type = Album). In this case the regex doesn't match. Is this possible to make "[^...]" match everything except a certain string of characters instead of matching everything except characters inside the brackets? In other words, how to make a regex that would match everything except a certain word? That would help. Jogers (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You usually just add the word after the regexp, in example, if you want to match everything until the word Album, just put do something like (.*)Album. From what I see, $1$4 puts a pipe if it is at the beginning or at the end, so it is using a Visual Basic-like regexp (which does not really surprise me if .NET took that directly to keep compatibility). I will see if I can connect to work's computer to try some stuff out in VB. If not, on Monday I will check if the regexps behave similarly. -- ReyBrujo 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. This: (\|)? *Name\s*=\s*(.*)((\|)\s*\r\n) -> $1$4 Name = $2\r\n seems to work perfectly. However the "reviews" field is problematic because it often contains a newline. When I change to the singleline mode so "." matches all characters instead of all but newline it doesn't work anymore. Jogers (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know (at least in Visual Basic) "." matches all but newlines. It seems .NET behaves in a similar way if an option is not chosen before executing the regexp. Try [.\n] for any character, if that option is off this should match every character. -- ReyBrujo 16:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It works almost perfectly now. I just had to add "?" to "(.*)" in the singleline mode in order to match as few characters as possible before "\|\r\n" like this: (\|)? *Name\s*=\s*(.*?)((\|)\s*\r\n) -> $1$4 Name = $2\r\n. Thank you for the assistance. Jogers (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of album infoboxes 

message: I've been trying to figure out where to point links for vocals in the credits for an album. According to WP:ALBUMS, instruments are linked to the page for that instrument, e.g., guitar. I'm most naturally inclined to call the vocals vocals. The thing is, however, that this word really points to singer. Personally I think the page linked to should be singing which corresponds more to the technical aspect of singing (or, the "instrument") rather than people who sing. I think that making this distinction would be similar to how links are pointed to guitar not guitarist or drum/drum kit and not drummer. Thoughts? —PrintHorizon 14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst it is less like pointing to guitarist or drummer, it is more like pointing to guitar playing or drumming, so either way it'll be inconsistent. Unless we change all of them to use a third form of disamigbuation, which could potentially jeopardise content for the sake of style. I dunno. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point. I have noticed that the disambiguation page for "voice" has the following description for "singer": "…or vocals, a term used in music recording to signify that an artist has contributed vocals to a song or album." Since that is exactly what we are referring to on the album pages, I suppose using vocals|singer would be just fine. --PrintHorizon 12:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocals/Singing/?

message: What do I do for tracks with quotes that are in track names? Such as This is a track: "That Uses Quotes", this wouldn't look right with the current rule to use quotes on song names in track listings. --blm07
:Standard American English usage requires single quotes. "No More 'I Love You's'" is a song on Medusa by Annie Lennox.--Fantailfan 18:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes in track names? 

message: The issue is being discussed, somewhat, at a CFD for :Category:Amorphis albums, which has just seven albums.  It's argued that doesn't warrant a category.  --Rob 20:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditionally, one.  Jkelly 20:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Categories: "[...] a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future)." --Fritz S. (Talk) 21:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many albums is needed to justify an "Artist albums" category? 

message: Over at Talk:Grateful Dead discography, me and a user are trying to determine how to classify Dylan & The Dead. The Grateful Dead were Bob Dylans backing band during this tour and the album was released as part of Dylans contract and from his label (Columbia Records), so I felt this should be made to reflect a Dylan album, much like Neil Young with Crazy Horse (band) on Everybody Knows This is Nowhere. The other user wants to add it to the Grateful Dead discography and as part of the chronology. Any thoughts? Thanks! -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 18:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would put in both discographies. Like you said, it was Dylan's show, so it qualifies as his album, but the entire Dead played on it and their name appears in the title, so it should go in theirs as well. I wouldn't put it in the Dead's chronology, though, because they were just the backing band, and the record didn't include any of their songs (IIRC). But then I prefer to have only studio albums, and major live recordings in the chronology, while I think discographies should be complete. -Freekee 02:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaborations/Backing bands

message: *Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_13#Category:Comedy_recordings_to_Category:Comedy_albums.  No need to reinvent the wheel.  -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recat discussion of [[:Category:Comedy recordings]] to [[:Category:Comedy albums]] 

message: So, there's this box-set which contains three albums. Each one of these albums have their own Wikipedia article. What I want to know is what goes in the 'Current album' section in the infobox (for the article on the album in the box-set)? Am I right in putting the box-set as the current album? 
One more thing, box sets are italicised just like album names? Thanks in advance. — Prodigenous Zee - 14:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... I did it this way for Rykodisc's 4-disc Elvis Costello box 2 1/2 Years. I put it chronologically in order of his other releases and called it a compilation. Perhaps unnecessary details. More comments welcome. --Fantailfan 14:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my case all of CDs are new and never released before... — Prodigenous Zee - 05:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on how much of a body article each album has... If not much, then I'd put all four together on a single page for the box set.  Otherwise if there's significant details about each album, then I'd put the box set page in the regular chronology and have the article for the box set discuss the box set in general and clearly link to the four component albums.  With each component album on a separate page, I'd use the regular chronology to display the box set as current, and the previous album and next album (non box set albums).  Then I'd add a second chronology box and list the artist as the box set title (even though it doesn't make sense to say Box Set Name Chronology) and the albums in proper order would be the prev/curr/next albums mentioned. Maybe instead of mentioning the year, mention which part (1-4) of the box set the album is.  Hopefully you followed that, but at the same time, I'm not an expert with this project ;) Hope that helps. ~Gertlex 03:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's the best thing to do. Thanks for your help! — Prodigenous Zee - 02:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box sets.. 

message: Someone who knows how to fix these things, I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong at The Reputation (album) regarding the reviews in the infobox.  Any help? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. But they still miss links... --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave up on tracking the links down 'cause I got frustrated.  I'll grab 'em now, though.  Thanks for the help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  quick request for help 

message: The Beatles is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy 15:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Beatles]]

message: ===Capitalization of foreign-language titles===
The issue of foreign-language albums isn't really addressed in the "Style" section, which is a shame. Many langages differ significantly from English in such style issues as how to capitalize things like titles.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of title capitalization rules in different languages isn't really addressed anywhere in Wikipedia as far as I know. It would be useful to have a guideline such as this one. Jogers (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be very useful to have just such a guide on and for Wikipedia. As it is, I ended up referring to a guidebook. The catch with sending everyone running to their local guide is that guides vary. Just the one guide said there are differences of opinion. So it would be a lot simpler to have a single thing that said, "This is how we handle foreign-language capitalization."  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Style issues

message: The issue of foreign-language albums isn't really addressed in the "Style" section, which is a shame. Many langages differ significantly from English in such style issues as how to capitalize things like titles.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of title capitalization rules in different languages isn't really addressed anywhere in Wikipedia as far as I know. It would be useful to have a guideline such as this one. Jogers (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be very useful to have just such a guide on and for Wikipedia. As it is, I ended up referring to a guidebook. The catch with sending everyone running to their local guide is that guides vary. Just the one guide said there are differences of opinion. So it would be a lot simpler to have a single thing that said, "This is how we handle foreign-language capitalization."  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization of foreign-language titles

message: Why is it so difficult for people to understand the procvesses of categorization? I've run into yet another editor (ExplodingVivi) who vehemently refuses to follow the project guidelines because she wants to color her album infoboxes "her own way". I've already tried talking to her, but she might benefit from the guideance of others as well. --FuriousFreddy 17:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A technical solution might be best.  Have the colour rendered not based on by-hand input from the user, but based on a "type of album" field.  I don't have a sense of how complicated that would be, though.  Jkelly 17:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was actually being discussed up there, I'm not sure how close to realisation it has gotten as of yet, though. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 17:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On: people not following the guidelines 

message: I've noticed whenever sorting :Category:Category needed and patrolling New Pages that there are always a large number of albums in need of categories. In order to help those of us who are trying to clean up there (and yet aren't so interested in this topic), would anyone object if I made this category? It would be quite helpful in keeping the "front lines" cleaned up, and would allow members of this project to have a good category to work on. 
Aside from reducing the distraction on the category needed list, this would also allow members of this project to keep a better eye on articles for notability, hoaxes, etc (i.e., you're the experts, ya know?) --SB_Johnny | talk 13:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to just be bold, and made the category. Here it is. SB_Johnny | talk 13:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a good idea to me, thank you.--Doktor Who 23:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Category:Uncategorized albums 

message: If an artist posts information to an article concerning one of his pieces, is that considered original research and hence verboten? Fantailfan 16:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the information was not published it is not verifiable. Jogers (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on verifying that the artist is the artist, and perhaps he can post it to his website once that is determined. Then it fills both requirements. Fantailfan 16:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Update - I have confirmed the posting is by the artist. Fantailfan 17:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pardon me for jumping in here, but I don't see how Fantailfan's personal testimony can be considered verifiable evidence of anything. Even if his/her "proof" were cited, it should at least be subjected to the same tests of reliable sources that any other evidence is. Am I missing something here? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The article in question is Avenging Annie. The user is the Andy Pratt, no question about it. Fantailfan 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't even an album... -- W guice 21:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research question