Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 9

message: AzaToth, the lavender is almost indistinguishable from the background; do you have any other hues in mind which could be used for cover albums? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 19:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiProject Songs changed from yellow to khaki for singles, and that hue is too close to palegoldenrod. Fantailfan 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: See http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_colornames.asp for more colors->AzaToth 20:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Or just go to Web colors. -- Reaper  X 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll go with burlywood. Fantailfan 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well. I motion that a vote be called per Fantailfan's nomination. Anyone to second the motion? Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: what of peachpuff for EPs? no, it's for something else. nm -W guice 18:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think gainsboro was just fine for soundtracks. -- Reaper  X 18:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we want to retain a gray hue for nonstandard album types. Fantailfan 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, but make it a swap of EP and Soundtrack colors... I disagree on lightpink v. paleturquoise, but I'm not going to argue. I only have flatscreen monitors and maybe that's why I think paleturquoise isn't too bright.Fantailfan 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall a vote on a background switch to lightsteelblue from orange for studio albums; what did I miss? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 00:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I made up the first (recent) full spectrum the vote was not yet finished (I think), so I believe showing the spectrum on the left as it is there is a holdover from then.  ps: I think prefer gainsboro to silver, but I can't tell without using another infobox, since the new one automatically colours.  (I think there should be an override field or something.) - BalthCat 03:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What — pray tell — is the rationale behind having an override field? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 17:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Azatoth started a new color palette and then I split it up into two wastes of spacesections. Just substituted gainsboro for silver in non-standard album colors. Fantailfan 18:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that the television/film and other/unknown should be switched, as I think the unknown type should be grayish. But otherwise it's fine. →AzaToth 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is album changed away from lightsteelblue? There's not point in changing that one again as most of us agreed for that to be a good colour for it. Andrzejbanas 19:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agree with Andrzejbanas and AzaToth. Studio album should stay lightsteelblue, so swap live w/studio since burlywood seems acceptable. New point: What do we do about combo live/studio albums? (Rattle and Hum) Fantailfan 20:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we can implement this change now, I'll change it soon unless someone complain. →AzaToth 21:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me  --Alcuin 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strike while the iron is hot? Yeah, okay. Back to the live/studio combo - it is a compilation only in the general sense. The definition of compilation is (I believe) previously-released material with maybe one or two 'previously unreleased' tracks. This means that reissued albums with bonus tracks are, technically, compilation albums. However, albums issued right off as live/studio are different. The problem (I think) is that we made Studio album the chief category, whereas with Album you could fudge a little. Ah, maybe we can figure it out later. Fantailfan 22:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Album should default to studio album  --Alcuin 23:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new colour theme (part two) 

message: Below is an amalgam [of sorts], derived from the responses so far. The nominations put forth by AzaToth and Fantailfan were blended, and I discarded the peachpuff — the amount of red and blue used by the lightpink is quite similar to that used by the discarded hue. (Besides, ReyBrujo has expressed interest in use of the latter hue, whereas use of peachpuff was barely noticed). Lightsalmon was selected as the possible replacement for the eshewed hue. 
Finally, based on Joltman's remarks, I have reshuffled the hues so that they bear some semblance to the original spectrum. Here is the end result:
Contructive feedback requested. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 19:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the television/film and other/unknown should be switched, as I think the unknown type should be grayish. But otherwise it's fine. →AzaToth 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is album changed away from lightsteelblue? There's not point in changing that one again as most of us agreed for that to be a good colour for it. Andrzejbanas 19:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agree with Andrzejbanas and AzaToth. Studio album should stay lightsteelblue, so swap live w/studio since burlywood seems acceptable. New point: What do we do about combo live/studio albums? (Rattle and Hum) Fantailfan 20:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we can implement this change now, I'll change it soon unless someone complain. →AzaToth 21:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me  --Alcuin 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strike while the iron is hot? Yeah, okay. Back to the live/studio combo - it is a compilation only in the general sense. The definition of compilation is (I believe) previously-released material with maybe one or two 'previously unreleased' tracks. This means that reissued albums with bonus tracks are, technically, compilation albums. However, albums issued right off as live/studio are different. The problem (I think) is that we made Studio album the chief category, whereas with Album you could fudge a little. Ah, maybe we can figure it out later. Fantailfan 22:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Album should default to studio album  --Alcuin 23:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidated spectrum 

message: I've been noticing these popping up in the Reviews listings. From what I can see it is not a useful review source - like rateyourmusic. Should we allow them or no? Fantailfan 15:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on WP:EL, I vote NO; for the same reason MySpace is now considered inappropriate. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted a couple more... Fantailfan 14:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epinions 

message: I know this can't be all things to all people...etc...and I also know Wikipedia has relationships with companies like AMG...that being said...
From an "end user" standpoint, groups of User reviews from established sites like "Rate Your Music or Amazon or other site contain as much, and often more information than on "professional sites".  I have been doing research on a couple of artists and find myself having to send in corrections to the "big boys" on numerous occasions for things as simple as misspelled names...much less fact checking, which I have found numerous errors.
The bottom line is, from a User standpoint, it would be just has helpful to be able to include the Amazon's or Rate Your Music's and the like as it is to rely on a sole source reviewer who may, or may not know what the h* they are talking about.
As I heard a long time ago..."You can believe everything you read - except those stories of which you have first hand knowledge"
It would be helpful to be be able to add credible groups of "User reviews"...they can often be more detailed and better reseached than to so-called "pros".  Thanks.
Tvccs 15:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We use AMG because they have virtually everything, even if they are wrong. User reviews, however helpful (and I do believe that there are far better reviews out on the web) are unbelievably inconsistent. This is not (primarily) a review site, but we have to have some reviews and we may as well go with the old farts at Rolling Stone. My 2cents. Fantailfan 19:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Strange as it may seem, but Wikipedia's goal isn't to report the truth. It's to report what the verifiable, reputable sources say - and that is indeed the likes of Rolling Stone and NME, not Amazon customer reviews. Interesting idea though, and a less enyclopedic music only wiki wouldn't be a bad idea... but it's not Wikipedia. --kingboyk 19:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love the Albums project, and I think that a free, independent repository of this data is a worthwhile endeavor.  That being said, I have often thought the project is more suited for its own Wiki project rather than on Wikipedia itself.  UnhandledException 02:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...I write for a NY Times paper...and there is NO way I'd simply buy into the idea that "We use AMG because they have virtually everything, even if they are wrong"  AMAZING!!!  Let me show an example of what I mean...AmazonAll Music Guide Facts - The American Metaphysical Circus was in print for nearly 20 years and had two re-releases before 2000, while the United States Of America was in print for no more than two years and had no re-release until 2004.  The twelve Amazon people give it five stars...while Mr. AMG who believes otherwise,largely pans it with a three, simply because he preferred the earlier work. I referenced the Amazon review in the text because the feedback is well-written and helpful, but it would be easier to include it under reviews and not get raped for doing it.  That...or add a field to the box for "user reviews", or modify the box script to just read "reviews".  Relying exclusively on so-called "professional" reviews in the days of the Web is extremely shortsighted at best, IMHO. Tvccs 01:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: People just use AMG for things cause it's often a place to find out some more basic straighthead information for sourcing (e.g: songwriting credits, year of relase, record charting, etc.).  I've been constantly browsing around to add reviews from sites like  and the Robert Christgau site to add to reviews. It's best to have at least more then one to keep it unbiased.  The problem with sites like Rateyourmusic.com and Amazon.com is that people who rate things there have an even more topsy turvy rating scale then allmusicguide. Is it fair to rate a Britney Spears album 1.5 due to the fact they don't like her as a person regardless of music? Most of those sites are either heavily biased in the 4.5 to 5 rating scale or to the lows of 1 to zero stars. As the albums page says "Use Your Best Judgement" if the All Music Guide rating suggests that it's heavily biased or fan-based. Then feel-free to remove it or not print-it. :)  Andrzejbanas 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You write for a NY Times paper? Congratulations! This, however, is an enyclopedia and the rules are different :) Amazon stars just don't meet our criteria for sources, end of story. (I'm not taking a position on this, just laying down the facts.) --kingboyk 18:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just the stars, although again, they are completely relevant in my opinion. AMG is riddled with fact errors, which I have tried to correct through the AMG mechanism, without a single reply or correction from AMG.  Amazon has some excellent user reviews, which their readers in turn rate for the helpfulness.  In the case of one of these reviews, I forwarded the copy to the artist themselves, and they responded that the reviewer had done an incredible job of nailing it, so to speak, which I agreed with - far, far better than the so-called expert from AMG, who made a major fact error of which he had no knowledge which tainted his entire presentation, and that fact error is being repeated worldwide through Wikipedia and its linking resources, I've seen it over and over and over now through Ansers, About, Encylopedia.com, etc.  If Wikipedia simply takes the position that it's going to repeat the errors of so-called credible sources regardless of facts and use that as a shield of ignorance, then it does its readers a fundamental disservice, defeats a primary purpose of the entire collaboarative effort, and loses a fumdamental strength in being able to draw from a far wider range of sources than ever before possible.  You suggest the rules are different for Wikipedia in that it has no responsibility to correct errors of fact, and simply rely on supposedly reliable sources when there are in FACT better ones and the so-called relaible ones are dead wrong?  Frankly, that's both irresponsible and asinine - even if it is the norm, heaven forbid.  And yes, if the AMG reviewer would have bothered, the issue was discussed in detail on Salon.com in April, 2002, much less bother to do credible research with the credible parties in question instead of approaching the issue from his POV which didn't support a major fact contention he forwarded in AMG and elsewhere.  Oh...and the AMG review also had fact errors for the musician listing, issue date, etc.  Credible source indeed.  And my experience with the smaller artists I work on is that in many cases the user-driven sources do as good or better job of rating the "cream" of an artist's catalog numerically than the big boys, it's by no means just high or low, and they flag numbers which only represent a small sample with a warning, as they should. Tvccs 16:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a distinction needs to be drawn here. You are talking about facts/information and subjective views as if they can be judged by the same criteria. A reviewer may introduce some basic facts/information to provide context to the reader or make their review more colorful and cohesive. AMG also has facts/information to the side like release date, release history, etc. It is true that AMG is not very credible in this area; errors are abundant. Because of this, I agree that AMG reviews or even biographies should not normally be used as sources to back up facts/information in a Wikipedia article. The same can be said for similar resources (e.g. The Great Rock Discography by Martin C. Strong).  However, for reviews, factual errors are petty. The primary purpose of a review is not to deliver facts/information, the primary purpose is to deliver views. Views are subjective and cannot be "dead wrong". When Richie Unterberger says "the songwriting is simply not nearly as strong as Byrd's previous group", he's neither right nor wrong; he's just sharing his perspective. When Unterberger gives an album 3 stars out of 5, that's his rightful opinion. Because their staff is made up of professional critics, AMG is credible in that area, regardless of whether you agree with them. Twelve Amazon reviews don't undermine the credibility of professionals. Wikipedia:Verifiability says "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false." It also says "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." I think Amazon reviews fall within that camp. If you want to change policy I think it is more appropriate to discuss it on the policy page. Punctured Bicycle 19:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks very much for your comments.  And since you go to the heart of the matter, i.e. Richie Unterberger's AMG review and his matgerials for the 2004 release of the USA reissue CD - I'll go to that point.  I disagree with Unterberger as to which of the two recordings is "better"...and for that...so what, it's meaningless.  However, he goes much further in calling TAMC a commercial failure, etc., in dismissing it and tying that back to his opinion.  The facts, as I knew first hand from professional experience and in talking with Joseph Byrd directly, are that in the U.S., and worldwide, TAMC sold much better than USA.  Period.  Yet Unteberger, because of his relationship with the "opposite camp" in this little tempest in a teapot, has repeatedly opined the opposite, which is wrong from a FACTUAL point of view.  That's my beef, not that he likes one recording better than the other, which is nada importance.  His review on AMG and other materials contain that complete error of fact, which Joseph Byrd addressed in his 2002 materials in the Napster case and which I have extended personal knowledge on going back 35 years at this point.  The FACT that his error continues to be repeated in a variety of forums, now including Wikipedia, undermines his credibility on the entire issue in an undeniable way - he's perfectly free to opine about why he likes one recording better than the other, he's not free to make a major fact error on sales/popularity in dismissal as a rationale.  My collaboration here with Ghmyrtle here has explained some things even Joseph Byrd, much less myself, wasn't aware of as to why the UK is much different than the US, and I've adjusted my copy accordingly and enhanced my knowledge, and am passing things along to Byrd directly as well - it's a textbook example of Wikipedia expert collaboration.  Byrd's work is likely to be written about in scholarly research for the next 50 years.  Unteberger is just plain wrong, because he never bothered to research the facts, rather he made an assumption based on a faulty opinion, whereas one review of the 2002 Salon article in question, or one phone call or e-mail to the only first-hand source (Joseph Byrd) would have readily confirmed otherwise. He could have them gone on to opine however he wished without repeating said fact error, etc. And as a result of his major fact error that colors his review, the opinions of some of those Amazon users who wrote them, as I illustrated, showed a far greater knowledge of the facts/technical aspects of the music in question than the so-called expert.  As I stated earlier...you can believe everything that you read except those stories of which you have first-hand knowledge, unless you do the research as a writer, and I try and write to that standard.  And thanks for the policy page suggestion as well.  And yes...I get to write about Wikipedia for my newspaper tonight - will making it appear there first make it somehow more credible at the outset?  P.S.  My thanks to all who have offered thoughts on this...it's been very useful. Tvccs 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "User Reviews" 

message: Miles Davis 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 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miles Davis 

message: Why is this here? I think we're busy already compulsively attending to our own narrow area of focus, not to mention obsessively finding out how Dolette McDonald's name is spelled, or whether Kate Bush is Alternative Rock, or just what the heck is proto-punk already, without worrying about the rest of Wikipedia. Fantailfan 19:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be blind. Where is the list? -Freekee 05:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, at the top of this page. I was looking on the project page. If there's a to-do list, shouldn't it be on the project page, and not the talk page? And if there's a to-do list for the album project, shouldn't it be our own list? -Freekee 05:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And you should probably ask that question of User:AzaToth, since he put it there. -Freekee 05:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums: 

message: :Category:Jazz Fusion albums or :Category:Jazz fusion albums? One should be deleted, I guess the former, but I am not sure. -- ReyBrujo 17:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the former.  I've corrected the one page in :Category:Jazz Fusion albums and added this handy template. -Acjelen 18:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks! -- ReyBrujo 18:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which category is right? 

message: I just thought I'd point out a few things, for whomever's interested, but hadn't noticed.
* Sign in here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Active members
* your name for your user page
*  userbox template
-Freekee 02:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining 

message: I've just added support for this WikiProject to my AWB plugin for adding templates to talk pages and assessing articles. Please see User:Kingbotk/Plugin for more information. --kingboyk 16:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AWB plugin 

message: I feel like some people are taking this too far.  Some users (particulary User:Hraefen) are even adding non-notable album tracks to disambiguation pages.  His/her goal seems to be for every single album track from every album to be linked to the album's page through a redirect or dab page.  If this is followed, disambiguation pages will be filled with hundreds of non-notable tracks.  I think it's fine to redirect singles or notable tracks which do not have separate articles to their respective album articles (or to add them to dab pages), but I really cannot imagine somebody coming to Wikipedia and entering random non-notable album tracks into the search field.  They would surely have the sense to search for the album.  Also, this is mostly being done with albums that are not even very notable themselves.  For example, see Rhythm and blues (disambiguation).  This dab page was created solely to dab the genre from some non-notable track from an album that didn't even chart in any country by an artist that also seems not be too notable.  I discussed this with the user, but she/he disagreed and reverted me when I redirected the dab page back to Rhythm and blues.  In my opinion, adding non-notable tracks to dab pages is just unnecessary clutter.  The probability of somebody searching for a track this way is near to zero.  If anything, this just creates confusion for somebody searching a dab page for a topic with actual notablity.  And it is ridiculous for "For other uses, see Rhythm and blues (disambiguation)" to appear at the top of the Rhythm and blues article because of one non-notable track.  --musicpvm 08:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have mixed feelings about that. First, I say "ugh." Non-notable, delete, blahblahblah. But then I think that if soneone's heard that song, and wants to find out who did it, how can they? This is the only way I can think of. If anyone has any other suggestions, maybe this editor should be made aware. But back to the first hand, non-notability. Which means that people shouldn't be able to search for it here. *shrug* -Freekee 04:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if they search for it, as long as it is in the body of the text for the album, shouldn't the album show up? I definitely think that this is unnecessary. Joltman 12:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would think so.  I personally just can't imagine users searching for random tracks.  If they are aware of the non-single track, they surely would be aware of the album too.  And if not, I don't think this extremely small or probably nonexistent number of searches should be a reason to clutter and create excess dab pages.  These users are just wasting their time with all these redirects/dab additions.  They're more clutter than they are useful.  --musicpvm 06:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's getting ever more tiresome trying to clear out :Category:Needs album infobox and seeing dozens of "This album is connected!"s on articles that don't even have basics like an infobox. -W guice 00:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good point.  Certain users' time would be much better spent actually trying to improve the articles of these albums rather than unnecessarily cluttering disambig pages.  --musicpvm 21:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects from album tracks to albums 

message: I can't seem to find a resource to get chart positions for an album, does anyone know of one? Weatherman90 15:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're looking for U.S. chart positions http://www.billboard.com lists the current charts as well as peak positions for older stuff. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip - it would probably work well in most cases except that I am looking for Pablo Cruise album & single chart positions - and they havent had any charting albums since the early 80s. Billboard only gives you 20 years back unless you pay to subscribe. Any one else? Weatherman90 16:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All Music has older Billboard chart listings available... --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart Positions

message: Im noticing in the chronology of many album infoboxes, the text in the "this album" field makes  show up. It is normal to have this text bold and italisized, but the template already bolds it, with no need for 3 of the 5 ticks that are normally put.  For example, if you put Siamese Dream, it will show up as Siamese Dream instead of Siamese Dream. I know for a fact this never used to happen, and now many infoboxes are getting screwed up, so what went wrong? -- Reaper  X 20:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody bolded "this album" in the template. I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing this out. Jogers (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Jogers (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology error

message: This was pointed out elsewhere, but album infoboxes with an extra chronology sections are still using the color that is designated in the infobox.  In other words, many infoboxes have an extra chronology section that is orange instead of lightsteelblue, such as Goodbye (album).  This issue was previously brought up with Blind Faith (album) (but I can't find that discussion).  The solution offered was to change the chronology to 'Extra chronology 2', but this too results in the manually inputed color showing up (or no color if none is chosen).  There has to be a way to fix this, but I don't have the skills.  Thanks.  --Alcuin 14:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra Chronology color error

message: It seems that now the background parameter is removed from the infobox, the Misc for extra chronology and extra cover art also needs an update. It still has a background parameter and if left unset, it defaults to piss-yellow. It however should take the colour of the infobox. E.g. A_Dangerous_Meeting Spearhead 20:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc section infobox 

message: See Joseph Byrd...this infobox doesn't seem to be rendering properly...looked at history...all prior versions are also not working. Help?  Thank you.  Tvccs 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see any problem. What is failing? -- ReyBrujo 16:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for an FYI long after the fact:  on 25 September, , an internal template used by , was damaged by a bot which mistook the color codes for Unicode charaacter definitions and "corrected" them.  This caused an ugly failure of the infobox.  Fortunately, I'd recently been working with the infobox code, and was able to track down and revert the change fairly quickly.  So, Tvccs is not crazy; there was a real problem. It just didn't last long.  :)  Xtifr tälk 08:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Infobox musical artist? 

message: Anybody have any old Record Collector price guide books? I think I've thrown mine out in favour of a year 2000 Penguin Price Guide for Record & CD Collectors. Basically, I'd like to "chart" the change in value of a mint condition copy of 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) over the years (£60 in Y2K). --kingboyk 14:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record Collector price guides 

message: Couple things I wanted to point out about the new infobox color template thing
#I think 'Split album' should be an appropriate term for an album (lightsteelblue).
#I really think an unknown album type should NOT be the same as a known album type. Right now, an unknown type gets gainsboro, which is the same as soundtracks. Unknown types should be some other arbitrary color like lightbrown or something.
Joltman 16:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we should discuss valid types and colors at the same type, otherwise we will be discussing the color of the new types later again. I suggested pink for unknown types, but never really caught on. -- ReyBrujo 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the current color proposal above, they include non-standard as silver. Fantailfan 17:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox color stuff 

message: Using a Misc field results in a different color than what is specified by the Type field.  Would it be possible to simply have the same color used for entries in the Misc section as what's in the main template?  Issue arose when adding an alternate cover and having to manually specify the background color.  If a 'Cover2' or 'CoverAlt' field were added into the main template that could resolve it as well. Sparkhead 17:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am guessing you were using . Try using , specifying a type there. That should work. We could not merge the changes of Extra album cover 2 into the other because the original is being used by singles as well. -- ReyBrujo  18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the example box in  wrong?  It shows {{Extra album cover as the start, I'm guessing it should be {{Extra album cover 2, but I'm not about to change that myself.  I switched to , and now when I don't set it manually, I get no background color, even if I set type to "Studio Album". If you could, review Under The Blade. If you go in and remove my background color for the extra section, it goes white. I think I'm doing everything correctly, but any pointers appreciated. Sparkhead 18:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the 2 is just a copy from the extra album cover, with a small modifications to work with the type. However, when we completely removed the background color from the main infobox album, we forgot to update it. It should be working now, thanks for noticing the error. -- ReyBrujo 19:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to be of help. Thanks for the update. Sparkhead 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc Fields 

message: Below is a pair of spectra. The spectrum on the left is the current convention; the one on the right is the proposed replacement spectrum:
Please voice your support for which spectrum you prefer below. (Support implies supporting the change; signal Oppose to maintain the status quo. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 23:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * post-voting notes: burlywood came in as a good non-excrement-colored brown and darker than wheat, beige and different than khaki, which is used for singles. lightpink, I don't know how that one popped up. I would like to change it but the rest are acceptable, at the very least, being better than the current set. --Fantailfan 11:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on spectrum for infoboxes. 

message: In the preceding discussion, User:Andrzejbanas stated: "the colour code isn't being used anymore due it being abused.".  Can someone tell me exactly how you abuse a color code?  Sparkhead 12:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found shouting obscenities at it to be quite effective. When that doesn't work, I hit the colour code with a big stick. --kingboyk 12:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehehehe. I believe the only change that has consensus was orange to lightsteelblue, per this discussion. We could be protecting  and  once we have settled everything (I am guessing four months of work still). -- ReyBrujo 13:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color code abused? 

message: I was just about to update Burden Brothers' Mercy because the band just announced that 2 weeks before the street date, the album is going to be released on iTunes. So, at first I was just going to put a note that it will be released early on iTunes. But then I thought, would the release date change to 10/14, or would it stay 10/31 since that's the wide distribution date? What do others think? Joltman 12:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with the later date and say (Regular release) or something along those lines... I also thing those guys are crazy for doing Itunes before the actual CD is sold. But that's just an opinion :) ~Gertlex 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It turns out that it will be available at iTunes and other download sites on that date, so I don't know if that changes anything. As for why they are doing it, I think it's so the die-hards will pay for the downloaded songs early and then still buy the actual CD when it comes out. 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would think that the earliest date that the album is available to the general public counts as the release date. We're talking about the published work, not the CD, specifically. -Freekee 01:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say that iTunes qualifies as "street" release, since it's still public.  It makes sense to observe it in a medium-independant way.  Perhaps a list of release dates for various media would be in order—with the first being the primary (ok that's redundant language). —StationaryTraveller 04:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Street date 10/31 but iTunes date 10/14, which one is the Release date? 

message: 10 days for a vote seems a bit excessive.  5 days, which will conclude within approximately 3 hours should be plenty. If an AfD can be done in 5 days, so can a template change.
A number of votes for Support mentioned the pink as the one disliked color.  If there's not major disagreement, it would seem straightforward to put gainsboro back to "Soundtracks" that pink now occupies and making the "Other" category peachfuzz or some other color.  
"Soundtracks (etc.)" was gainsboro before and I cannot see a valid reason for moving that color to another category.  Does anyone who likes the pink think it's a color they simple cannot live without? Sparkhead 20:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to come up with a kŭl'ər other than lightpink first. Fantailfan 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for putting gray as the color of undefined is that people usually link gray to undefined/other. →AzaToth 20:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should start assigning meaning to any color.  Soundtracks were gainsboro and that seemed to be fine. Peachfuzz was invalidated due to its close nature to lightpink. But if lightpink is gone, peachfuzz can be brought back into the spectrum and put in the other category. Which, if used properly, should rarely been seen.  I believe this should be done ASAP. (5 days is now passed) Sparkhead 01:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spectrum Vote Continued 

message: The vote to replace the spectrum passed with a supermajority. However, in light of concerns raised by the vote, I would like to invite those who expressed concern about certain hues to propose replacements for lightpink (and burlywood.) 
Please provide input within the next 96 hours. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 02:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest leaving a note in the talk page of those who voted oppose to let them know about this. -- ReyBrujo 02:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I liked lightskyblue. It's blue and light. It's dissimilar to any of the other colors chosen. Is it too close to the blue of the band infobox, and does that matter? What about a lighter shade of blue, like cyan? -Freekee 03:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have made the change now, as I see that with the changes, there is consensus, no need to process it till end of days. →AzaToth 11:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good. Thanks for getting it done. -Freekee 00:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And thanks to all who helped on this infobox project! -Freekee 03:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final tally and call for amendments. 

message: I've been reading the discussions here (see above), looking for answers about videos. Let me see if I can sum up the discussion and see what questions still need to be answered.
There are music videos, which are analogous to singles. There are also longform videos, including concert videos and compilation videos. It was suggested that if a video was a theatrical release, it should use the film infobox, but if it was straight-to-video, it should use the album infobox. When using the album infobox, the type should be either live or compilation. Either that or create a new type: video. There was a suggestion to use both categories, where applicable, but I'm not sure how that works. There is already a ; 
Here's the reason I was drawn to this topic: categories. I found several video releases that were uncategorized. I thought that :Category:Videos by artist made sense, but I want to make sure people agree on naming. Could videos by artist refer to both short and long form releases? Would this be a problem? Should we have both Music videos by artists and Videos by artist? There's already :Category:Music videos and DVDs. I hate to see the format in the title, but so far, the song videos have been kept out. 
Discuss. -Freekee 03:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no infobox, or people choose either Album or Film. I argue it should be under Album (as the types I listed above) or Film (when it is an actual pay-yer-ten-bucks movie). --Fantailfan 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't argue with that. I was more interested in opinions about naming, for categories. I'd like to categorize some of those uncategorized videos. -Freekee 00:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video releases 

message: I had brought up this topic many times but since noone bothered to reform the infobox now I felt like it's time put the question into discussion again while the revision of the new infobox still goes. I also like to inform the people in this project that the :Category:Mixtape albums has reached the total of 211 pages (with the subsequent pages) at the moment. I don't care about the type of the color just choose one if we all agree to have one. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 12:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I didn't say they were the same, but they are in the same category. From the first line of Mixtape: "A mixtape is a compilation of songs and or tracks...". *Sparkhead 13:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support having an additional color for mixtapes, they serve a different role than compilations. --Alcuin 17:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Considering that it is said that compilations such as greatest hits albums, are generally not notable, I have to ask why these mixtapes are so notable. -Freekee 00:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought too, but then I'm old and used to make mix tapes on reel-to-reel and didn't distribute them--how would you copy them? --Fantailfan 01:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section wasn't started to solve the notability problem. As said above there are compilations that aren't notable, but still a distinct color exists for them in the infobox. Notability should be considered before creating the article or after by nominating it for deletion. But still we can have a color for them just to inform readers (who aren't editors) that these are mixtapes. And BTW there ARE mixtapes that reached gold status or were listed on prominent music charts. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 22:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Not to sound even less cool than I already am (I'm so uncool, ice cubes melt in mouth), but can you name ten mixtapes that are notable - that the cognoscenti would recognize as seminal? --L7Fantailfan 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will but please let's get back to the color question. The category has grown with 9 more pages in the past 3 days (when I started the discussion)...Is it only me who wants to take the  mixtape-phaenomena seriously? Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 23:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Side note: Can you please fix your sig?  A 200+ character sig multiple times while editing this is a bit over the top, as is a 30+ character sig in the display window. Is a link to Snoop Dogg truly required in your sig?  Can you just put "talk"?  Since you didn't respond to the request in your talk page, I'm asking here.  Just a matter of common courtesy.  Thanks. *Sparkhead 01:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinct color for mixtapes 

message: How much can albums on the Greatest Hits page vary from the exact title Greatest Hits?  I am wondering about adding albums such as Greatest Hits: My Prerogative by Britney Spears and Greatest Hits: 30 Years of Rock by George Thorogood & The Destroyers — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 15:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No variation at all preferably. It's a disambiguation page, not a list... meaning it's there only to aid navigation not to be comprehensive. --kingboyk 20:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not necessarily against it, just use your discretion based on what I've told you about the purpose of dab pages :) If you think that an editor would accidentally link to the Greatest Hits page, when they meant to link to the album pages you're working on, or a reader is likely to type in "Greatest Hits" when they actually want your article, that's a perfect dab candidate and should be on the dab page. All other entries should not be on the dab page, as it's there for navigational help not to serve as a list. --kingboyk 19:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greatest Hits

message: I was wondering if there is a list of acts who have web pages in need of being wikified?  I was looking at the Gap Band and thinking that for a band with 4 consecutive platinum albums their web page could use some discographication work.  We should start such a list if it does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're gonna add discography sections to band articles, I recommend checking out that artist's pages on the other wikipedias, often they already have discographies, and they're easy to translate to English.  Cheers.  --Alcuin 17:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How about creating :Category:Band articles in need of discographies, for the talk pages? -Freekee 04:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i like this idea. it seems a neat way of targetting a fairly crucial area of bands' pages that can often be lacking. -W guice 10:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That was what I was thinking.  I think we should start such a category.TonyTheTiger 18:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It ought to categorise the talk pages really, not the articles. It also needs a template - either a standalone template or perhaps as a parameter in  (which now applies to all musicians including musical groups, under the remit of WP Musicians). --kingboyk 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed: talk pages only. The category is an aid to editors, not readers. And I wonder if it should be "performers", or "artists", instead of "singers". -Freekee 23:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could combine singers and bands to :Category:Musician articles in need of discographies, but using "performers" or "artists" only welcomes confusion and encourages acceptance of corporate-speak.  -Acjelen 00:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Mea culpa, i added one to an artist's article page by mistake. Put it down to a brain bubble or something. -W guice 11:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If a category is empty (in this case, all articles discographized), doesn't the category get deleted? Can this be avoided? -Freekee 03:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Like I said above, these categories are intended to help editors find the articles and expand them. That's not something that readers need to see, and shouldn't be cluttering up the articlespace. To add the cats to the discussion pages, simply go to them, edit them, and put in the category just like you did on the article pages. -Freekee 01:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but those templates alert the reader that some part of he article may not be up to proper standards. I don't think that missing information is a problem that needs a warning label, nor do I think that readers need to find more of such articles. -Freekee 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acts in Need of Discographication

message: Gramophone record 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 14:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gramophone record]]

message: Just wrote up the Tortoise box set. It seem that if (in the infobox "Album type" field) you try to bypass the redirect page at Box set by piping it to Boxed set (where the article is) it misses the darkseagreen and defaults to an "Unknown album" peachpuff. It's a minor quibble, obviously, but i'm always on a bit of a hunt to avoid redirecting excessively. Is there a way round this? Cheers -W guice 11:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in the request for move.  Couldn't do it direct due to edits in the redir's talk page.  *Sparkhead 12:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, that's what i thought might happen. "Box set" seems to be the more common/obvious term to me, too, and it's the one that triggers the correct infobox colour which is obviously a bonus, but i didn't know what the history was or whether there was a specific reason for it to be under "Boxed". Cheers -W guice 12:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box Sets 

message: Has anyone ever proposed adding 3 lines to artist templates:
1. Grammy (wins/noms)
2. Singles (#1's/top 10/charting)
3. Albums (#1's/top 10/charting)TonyTheTiger 19:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Different Project - this is Albums. --Fantailfan 03:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that we already have the candidate for the "most likely to run off the first screen" infobox on our hands. What use has an infobox if not to condense information? –Unint 05:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Artist templates

message: Get Back 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 19:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Get Back]]

message: Layla 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 19:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Layla]]

message: Could someone please have a look at it? !!! (album)... The infobox is messed up as the ! is a table separator and the chronology part uses the article name. In the infobox, I've changed !!! to !!!, but still broken. NCurse  work 08:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also happens with all albums by !!!, because of the "!!! chronology" section. 80.41.197.117 08:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Got it! :) Just had to replace the artist variable with the html special characters for it, and ! is '!'. So instead of !!! put !!! Joltman 12:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good skillz! -W guice 13:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need help with !!! (album) 

message: When adding a category for album artists, i.e. :Category:Anita Baker albums to a specific genre i.e. :Category:Smooth jazz albums, I'm confused on whether to pipe link the names or not, like last-name-first/first-name-last, or just add the genre without pipelinking?  Would she go under 'A' for Anita or 'B' for Baker?  I've noticed there is not really any continuity here for all genres.... Cricket02 13:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused about Categories 

message: I was cleaning up CKY's album articles, and came to a question. Their first album was originally released on an independent label, and later re-released on a major label. Their second album was the first to be intially released on a major label. So would their second album count as a major label debut, or would their be no major label debut since the first album was already re-released on a major label? Joltman 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say the album that they release with the new label is the MLD. With Sonic Youth I believe DGC bought the whole back catalog because they had been on so many labels prior to their MLD. --Fantailfan 15:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Snow Patrol is an interesting comparison to this.  Their major-label debut was Final Straw, but A&M recently reissued Songs for Polarbears and their second album.  Their major label debut is most certainly Final Straw, I think it would be wrong to consider their reissued album a "major label debut." --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially since the re-release of the catalog will be at least partially based on the success of the group's initial release with the major label. -Acjelen 16:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me (I could be mistaken) that in those two cases, the re-issue of the earlier album was released after the 'major label debut'. But with CKY, their first album was re-issed by the Island Records before their second album came out. Just wanted to mention that, didn't know if it would change any opinions. Joltman 16:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Tough one. Volume 1 was released by Island prior to their release of Infiltrate•Destroy•Rebuild. However, IDR was released when the band was under contract, while Vol 1 was a reissue. My opinion is that you have three choices, none of which are invalid. If it were my choice, I wouldn't mention it. -Freekee 03:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major label debut - does a re-release count? 

message: Where would Live EPs fit, as EP or Live album. Spearhead 22:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it depends on context, I think in most cases I would use EP  --Alcuin 04:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say that the more interesting and pertinent fact is usually that a record is an EP. -Freekee 04:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I always put it as live, seeing as how our project page says "Live albums and live EPs" for burlywood. Joltman 12:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there enough Live EP to justify inclusion in the infobox as type? -- ReyBrujo 12:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I just had a thought about this, I'm sure others won't agree, but I'll put it out there anyway. Should there be a type specifically for live EP which is a different shade of brown? It just seems kind of weird for studio EP and studio album to have different colors, but then live EP and live album would be the same (or for the live EP to just have the EP color). Joltman 12:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not have an article about Live EP, thus it is not noteworthy enough. I suggest merging it with Album or Live. -- ReyBrujo 12:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live EPs

message: I recently went through all the articles that link to album (music), found here and replaced any remaining instances of piped links to [album (music)] (there were lots).  All except for category and image pages, and those pages that use a non-standard album or song infobox.  Thus, if anyone's interested in replacing old album infoboxes with the template infobox, that's a good place to find them.  I'll be going through and converting those over time, but I'd certainly welcome help.  Cheers, Alcuin 04:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't a bot be setup to do that kind of stuff? Joltman 12:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I'm hoping --Alcuin 13:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox conversions 

message: What is Longtype? Thank you so much for anyone's kind help! – Alakey2010 12 October 2006, 04:55pm (CDT)
:It is a special parameter that is inserted between the album name and the artist name in the infobox description. In example, a type of Soundtrack and an artist of Madonna will show Soundtrack by Madonna in the infobox just below the image. If you add a longtype of for XYZ film, it will show Soundtrack for XYZ film by Madonna. It is optional, and was originally thought for soundtracks only. -- ReyBrujo 22:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Longtype    

message: I just updated/clarified the instructions and guidelines for infoboxes on the project page. Feel free to take a look and make sure everything still makes sense. -Freekee 05:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox instructions 

message: I've raised an issue on the album cover template used on images of album covers.  The tag is currently in use for many things that aren't music, and I'm wondering whether it'd be better to change the current template to suit all audio covers, or get together a new one for the non-musical stuff.  I'd like to get a discussion going and see what people think before requesting an admin to edit the existing template, so please join the discussion here on the template's talk page, and add your thoughts! Rob T Firefly 10:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I see why the album cover template should be reserved for musical albums?  The template should be able to cover any type of album cover. -Acjelen 20:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, album=33 1/3rpm, 7" or 12" record album, OR digital 5" compact audio disc. What else could it be? --Puzzled in Boston (aka Fantailfan 21:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template has now been changed by an admin to read "audio recording," rather than "music album."  Now it fits all the non-musical albums out there.  Thanks for your input! Rob T Firefly 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with album cover template 

message: I'm not apart of your WikiProject, but I'm currently working on the Big Shiny Tunes article. I only own two albums in this series, and if anybody has any more info on it that they could share, that would be great.  ---SilentRAGE! 03:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I'm a member now. Just spreadin' awareness of this article. Tell me what you think.  ---SilentRAGE! 06:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some help? 

message: Title says it all, there are a fair few of these, if anyone's looking for sonething useful to do. Rich Farmbrough, 22:52 16  October 2006 (GMT).
:I will try to fix some. A pity there is no such category for songs or singles. I will focus on album infoboxes. By the way, I could not yet find a way of making the infobox insert something when you substitute it. -- ReyBrujo 00:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *i've edited the group tasks list so that it doesn't say this category is "currently zero" and point to the wrong place. W guice 12:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been putting songs and singles needing conversion there too, as well as entire categories.  Hope that doesn't bother anyone.  --Alcuin 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed maybe 20 albums yesterday, may work another 10-15 today (not as much free time). I just skip the singles and songs for now. -- ReyBrujo 16:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Needs album infobox conversion

message: Is there any chance of adding support for type=single in Template:Extra album cover 2?  There is at least one article for a single ("Windowlicker") using the EAC template.  --taestell 02:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the default color is the single color. So, as I did in that article, just don't include the type argument and you'll get the right color. Joltman 12:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Extra album cover 2

message: If an album has been released under multiple labels (as is the case with Astral Projection albums), what should Label in the infobox say? Each of the labels, the first one only or something else?
I put in all labels, separated by newlines, on Another World (Astral Projection album) since the releases differ slightly, and now I'm pondering whether I should do the same on the other Astral Projection album pages. Shurique 16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The project page officially says that only the label the album was originall released on should be in the infobox. Joltman 12:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I seem to have missed that. Sorry :) Shurique 08:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Although, if you want a suggestion for how to do it if you're going to list multiple labels, I'd say list them in order of release. ~Gertlex 20:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albums released under multiple labels? 

message: If I want album pages peer-reviewed by people such as yourselves, where should I post them? Is there somewhere specific, do I just do it going by standard peer-review protocol, or is this the place to do it? By the way - the albums are Somewhere Along the Highway and Oceanic. Seegoon 19:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All peer reviews are done at the peer review page, but you can direct people to it by posting a note here. –Unint 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If I want my contributions peer-reviewed... 

message: I am getting increasingly irritated by seeing these words when there are perfectly usable and understandable alternatives - first and second.  It seems to me to show a lack of originality - using in-words for the cognoscenti that wouldn't be tolerated in another field.  Imagine the Sophomore World War, or Roosevelt's debut administration.  Can we leave these words where they belong and not use them as an oh-so-clever bit of jargon?  Emeraude 21:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i think i will be continuing to use "debut" as it is completely appropriate within the context. Personally i don't use "sophomore" because i'm not American and it feels slightly false, but that's obviously more a cultural thing. Fortunately we don't write about political administrations or conflicts at the albums project, and therefore don't have to worry that the terms sound jarring when applied to those things. Originality doesn't come into it - there is a small range of stock ways of including a detail like Album Number that would all ultimately reveal a "lack of originality" if subjected to that level of scrutiny. Fortunately we aren't having a neologism contest but just presenting the information clearly, and i think this goal is served by either way. And how on earth can "debut" be jargon, by any stretch of the imagination? W guice 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debut.  Sophomore. 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory