Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 22

message: I think a subpage would be best. What do you think? What should be included? -Freekee 03:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what format we should use depends on how much text we write, and how much it intersects with our existing guidelines. --PEJL 09:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project guideline page 

message: There are a few things regarding the template that need to be expanded, like making an "extra video cover" template. Additionally, PEJL has a proposal to merge it with the album infobox. -Freekee 03:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To implement a "misc" option is pretty easy, which would simply allow this to be implented by a copy. Although, personally, I'm more inclined to promote the infobox merge, though. There'll end up less involved in doing that in the long run. I actually think to have the option to include both the DVD cover and CD cover when applicable in the one infobox would be great (such as could be done here or here for instance). Nice and tidy. --lincalinca 03:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll prototype a merge. --PEJL 09:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See prototype here. --PEJL 13:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox has been updated and now supports the "video" type, and a "Director" field. I'll update the template documentation shortly. A simple way to merge the templates would be to change Template:Infobox music DVD to use the code at User:PEJL/Template:Infobox music DVD (which transcludes Template:Infobox Album with the corresponding parameters). --PEJL 17:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing about that is that it doersn't include all of the more complex inclusions, such as longtype, compiler language and caption. These would be particularly useful for music dvd/videos since compilations are quite common, the longtype is useful to define the type of video album it is (in some cases), and dvd covers may vary based on releases, so the caption would be useful for them. With these, I believe the template would be ready for a bot to make its way through and have its way with them... um, figuratively speaking, that is. --lincalinca 12:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason User:PEJL/Template:Infobox music DVD doesn't include those advanced fields is that Template:Infobox music DVD doesn't support them. To clarify, we could replace Template:Infobox music DVD with the code from User:PEJL/Template:Infobox music DVD and have the existing articles work mostly the same they do now (with the exception of the dropped fields and the changed type, as discussed below). We should then update all uses of  to  (possibly using a bot), which would allow the use of the advanced fields. Using the code from User:PEJL/Template:Infobox music DVD is not necessary, it is just a stop-gap to start using the album infobox behind the scenes until all templates have been converted. --PEJL 13:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, gotcha. Well, in that case, go for it! So when are we going to use "editprotected" and get this nifobox changed to incorporate the new changes to allow the full conversion? And of course, we need to draft up info that needs to be placed on the doc page too. --lincalinca 13:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This infobox ((Template:Infobox Album) has already been updated, and so has the documentation. See above. --PEJL 14:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As suggested by PEJL, I'm bringing this up here: I think we need to include other variables that produce "Video album" such as "DVD" and the like, but potentially "Blu Ray" and "HDDVD". Currently I'm not aware of any Bluray or HD for music, but it's invariably just around the corner. Right now, I'm just voting that they present exactly like the Video album would,. but potentially, it could be converted to indicate that it's a DVD based video album (or something to that effect). --lincalinca 15:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are to produce the same output, I see no reason to support additional type values. I'd rather move in the opposite direction, to drop support for some of the rare type aliases that we currently support (after first updating the articles that use them of course). Why would we include info on which media a video album was released on in the type when we don't do so for audio-only albums? See also #Naming below. --PEJL 16:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't care to see type support for formats like Blu Ray, but I would like to see the other most commonly used types supported (displaying the word "video"). Those being DVD and VHS. -Freekee 03:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? --PEJL 10:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because people tend to use those very often. If we have those types display "video," people will catch on. Otherwise they tend to come her and make us explain why we're not going to add those types. Those two terms, in particular, transcend my prejudice against allowing format types in the infobox.  "DVD" seems to have become a generic term for video products. Kind of like "album" did for audio products, many many years ago. -Freekee 03:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK (as long as we do it to avoid adding format-specific types rather than as a stepping-stone to adding such types). I'll add a request to treat "DVD" as "video". --PEJL 10:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I went ahead and made Template:Infobox music DVD use Template:Infobox Album, and marked Template:Infobox music DVD as deprecated. --PEJL 07:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason I didn't do that is that it seems broken by design. You don't have to look further than the example at Template:Infobox music DVD#Example to see why this doesn't work. Also, the "Region" label links to the same page, so I thought it redundant. --PEJL 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we need Region? It only applies to DVDs, and only applies if it hasn't been released worldwide. We don't have a field for "country of origin" which would apply to any form of any release (album, EP, VHS, DVD). I don't think it's generally important enough to include, and if it is, it should probably be in the text of the article. -Freekee 23:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [...] As to region inclusion, it's an important thing to include because all DVDs are affected by this, and the majority of music video compilations are DVDs, which are region encoded. I do have a small few music DVDs (about 10) that are region free, but the majority (about 150) of my music DVDs are region 1 or 4, while the rest (about 30) are a mixture. To me, this is something that is important to note when applicable, and would be silly to try and work into prose every time. --lincalinca 11:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And none of those DVDs have been released in other regions? It would be better not to mention the region issue at all than to say that a DVD only works in a certain region if it in fact exists in different versions for different regions (misinformation). Also, these region codes only apply to DVDs, while the infobox should be able to be used for video album releases in other formats (Betamax/VHS/DVD/Blu-ray/HD DVD/...) and for releases in multiple formats. At least Blu-ray seems to also have region coding, with a completely different set of regions (see Blu-ray Disc#Region codes). VHS cassettes don't have region coding but have a comparable issue with NTSC/PAL/SECAM/MESECAM. Should we be including that info in the infobox as well? If we are to include the DVD region, we need to make it possible to specify more than one region, so I think we should drop the automatic linking of the value. (As I mentioned before, the label already links to the same article.) --PEJL 14:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that it was seldom applicable, and in cases where it is, it's important enough to discuss. For example, if a video was only released in the UK, it might be worth saying so (and this example is regardless of regions). But if I'm wrong, and it's fairly common for videos not to be released in many parts of the world, then it's still not worth including in the infobox. -Freekee 02:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've dropped "Region". --PEJL 09:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I like "Video album". It's explicit without being jargon. [...] --lincalinca 11:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Video album" sounds good to me, but does anyone else have any other suggestions? Video album seems to fit well when the release includes both video and audio discs. There are concert films, and collections of short music videos. Are there any other kinds? Will we differentiate these live videos from the compilations with colors? -Freekee 02:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thinking was that video albums are rare enough to not need further type differentiation. Using different type colors but the same type name seems confusing and contrary to our existing type scheme. Using different type names requires coming up with appropriate type names. --PEJL 09:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me -Freekee 14:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ratings don't really apply to music videos, do they? -Freekee 14:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, no objections to dropping "Rating"? --PEJL 16:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'd be going against precedent -Freekee 05:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, can you clarify? Would including it be against precedent or would dropping it be against precedent? --PEJL 05:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please drop it. -Freekee 13:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --PEJL 15:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx -Freekee 02:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video infobox 

message: I've just modified the parameter for region encoding. I've adjusted the region page to link directly to the section of the article that uses the number. The only parameter one should use there (based on this change) is numeric from 0 to 8. Anything else will fudge it up. --lincalinca 14:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I didn't do that is that it seems broken by design. You don't have to look further than the example at Template:Infobox music DVD#Example to see why this doesn't work. Also, the "Region" label links to the same page, so I thought it redundant. --PEJL 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we need Region? It only applies to DVDs, and only applies if it hasn't been released worldwide. We don't have a field for "country of origin" which would apply to any form of any release (album, EP, VHS, DVD). I don't think it's generally important enough to include, and if it is, it should probably be in the text of the article. -Freekee 23:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [...] As to region inclusion, it's an important thing to include because all DVDs are affected by this, and the majority of music video compilations are DVDs, which are region encoded. I do have a small few music DVDs (about 10) that are region free, but the majority (about 150) of my music DVDs are region 1 or 4, while the rest (about 30) are a mixture. To me, this is something that is important to note when applicable, and would be silly to try and work into prose every time. --lincalinca 11:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And none of those DVDs have been released in other regions? It would be better not to mention the region issue at all than to say that a DVD only works in a certain region if it in fact exists in different versions for different regions (misinformation). Also, these region codes only apply to DVDs, while the infobox should be able to be used for video album releases in other formats (Betamax/VHS/DVD/Blu-ray/HD DVD/...) and for releases in multiple formats. At least Blu-ray seems to also have region coding, with a completely different set of regions (see Blu-ray Disc#Region codes). VHS cassettes don't have region coding but have a comparable issue with NTSC/PAL/SECAM/MESECAM. Should we be including that info in the infobox as well? If we are to include the DVD region, we need to make it possible to specify more than one region, so I think we should drop the automatic linking of the value. (As I mentioned before, the label already links to the same article.) --PEJL 14:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that it was seldom applicable, and in cases where it is, it's important enough to discuss. For example, if a video was only released in the UK, it might be worth saying so (and this example is regardless of regions). But if I'm wrong, and it's fairly common for videos not to be released in many parts of the world, then it's still not worth including in the infobox. -Freekee 02:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've dropped "Region". --PEJL 09:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Region 

message: Another issue is the question of what to call these releases. "DVD" seems inappropriate for the same reasons as CD. "Music video" is ambiguous. I chose "Video album". That term is mentioned twice in the article on music videos and is consistent with some of our other album types. What do you think? --PEJL 16:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "Video album". It's explicit without being jargon. [...] --lincalinca 11:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Video album" sounds good to me, but does anyone else have any other suggestions? Video album seems to fit well when the release includes both video and audio discs. There are concert films, and collections of short music videos. Are there any other kinds? Will we differentiate these live videos from the compilations with colors? -Freekee 02:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thinking was that video albums are rare enough to not need further type differentiation. Using different type colors but the same type name seems confusing and contrary to our existing type scheme. Using different type names requires coming up with appropriate type names. --PEJL 09:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me -Freekee 14:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: I think we should consider dropping "Rating" as well, as Template:Infobox Film has no such field. See also the talk archives at for example Template talk:Infobox Film#Ratings. --PEJL 09:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ratings don't really apply to music videos, do they? -Freekee 14:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, no objections to dropping "Rating"? --PEJL 16:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'd be going against precedent -Freekee 05:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, can you clarify? Would including it be against precedent or would dropping it be against precedent? --PEJL 05:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please drop it. -Freekee 13:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --PEJL 15:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx -Freekee 02:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: It just occurred to me when setting up the template for the discography (that I mentioned further down the page) that we don't have an article for Video albums, even though we're using it as the definition in this template. I'm pretty sure it's an important thing for us to create. I wouldn't know where to start (I like to work on improving articles or starting smaller ones, not starting things of that magnitude: it's rather daunting). --lincalinca 10:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I made Template:Infobox Album/link link to music video, because that article covers concert films as well. --PEJL 10:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of. I read through the article, and it doesn't really capture them, and treats video albums as a kind of second rate thing, compared to music videos (just by the prose). I think it's important to split out what (little) information is already there and create a new article that comprehensively covers the topic, rather than skimming it as this article does. --lincalinca 12:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video album 

message: Quite a few video albums use . I think we should tag these with . --PEJL 11:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -Freekee 03:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converting from film infobox 

message: I did some cleanup on Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Albums. It should be more user-friendly now for anyone itching to make articles. Chubbles 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RA

message: I've recently been working on a few albums that contain heavy use of copyright piracy samples; also some where samples from the album have been notably used elsewhere. There appears to be no standard for documenting this. The format I've adopted thus far can be seen here  and I'm wondering whether this is an acceptable approach. The reason I ask is that I'd rather get it right now, when it can be changed with little effort, before it gets out of hand. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Track names should be in double quotes, not italicized, boldfaced or in single quotes, per WP:ALBUM#Formatting and WP:MOSBOLD#Boldface. Headings should use sentence case, per WP:MOSHEAD#Capitalization. --PEJL 00:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That formatting looks best. 69.143.236.33 07:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "that" refer to? --PEJL 08:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samples & Influences 

message: Imparative discussion here.--Monnitewars (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the benefit of others I'll note that that discussion hardly seems imperative for that album article, let alone for this project. --PEJL 09:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEW DISCUSSION!!! 

message: I noticed it hasn't been stated in WP:ALBUM. If a person is mentioned in the track listing or the personnel sections, are we supposed to use his/her real name or stage name? Eg. Norman Cook or Fatboy Slim? RaNdOm26 11:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience the real name is most often used. This has the advantage that it works well with our practice of only including the last name on subsequent mentions in the track listing. --PEJL 11:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, it generally will tie in with the artist's article page (unless it's someone like snoop dogg, sting or whoever) because mostly, stage names are not as prolific as the actual name. My feeling would actually be to go with whatever's on the album sleeve. For instance, Keb' Mo' is credited on all of his albums for his songwriting as Kevin Moore (in his case, you need to pipe or dab, since kevin moore links to the guy who used to be in Dream Theater). --lincalinca 03:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In personnel sections, use the name as it appears on the album. A second choice would be to list it however it is most often found here at Wikipedia (in other words, how would you link it to their article?). I also recommend using the name as it's found on the record for track listings. They usually use the person's real name, since it's a question of authorship, which is often used for paying royalties. -Freekee 05:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real names vs stage names 

message: Is there a standardized format for track lists? I've seen multiple formats, especially two:
* Islands - track titles in quotes, dash, track length
* Velvet Darkness They Fear - the same as above, but no quotes
I assume the former is to be used? Or are there any formats I don't know of? --MiSP 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is, see WP:ALBUM#Track listing. Quotes should be used. --PEJL 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a standardized format for track lists? 

message: Many articles contain a table of peak chart positions, often in the infobox, but these rarely have sources provided. Editors often change these values, also without providing a source. Is there a good reason why these numbers should not just be removed entirely, if they are not sourced? Gimmetrow 16:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peak chart positions are usually not attributed inline, but are sourced through the AMG link in most infoboxes, since AMG includes tabs for Billboard albums & singles. See this one, for instance. I myself prefer inline citations, but the template for AMG seems to suggest that most of the time the AMG link should not be duplicated. (Sometimes I do it anyway, if I think the claim is extraordinary and especially if I'm quoting text.) Personally, I'd be very happy to go inline with that myself. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll also add that I think a lot of editors do not understand the links are there in the infobox. Yesterday, an article I was actively working on was tagged unreferenced (in spite of the inuse label) notwithstanding that link. --Moonriddengirl 17:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen an album article with peak chart positions in the infobox. Perhaps you are thinking of single articles? --PEJL 17:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. :) I meant the sourcing was in the infobox, not the positions, in connection to the linked review. --Moonriddengirl 18:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox shouldn't include any inline citations. Everything in the infobox is supposed to be there to provide a consolidated version of what appears throughout the page and as such, the other locations throughout the article should be indicating this information (in this case, in a charts section and if a charts section isn't included in the article, it shouldn't really be in the infobox). This is mostly my preference, but also appears (from my time as an editor) to be a general consensus in wiki. --lincalinca 23:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently I'm not explaining myself very well today. :) I'm not suggesting that the charts section is in the infobox. I'm saying that the reference to All Music—which is the source for the charting information in the article and often much of the other information as well—is in the infobox, as indicated in Template:Allmusicguide/doc and WP:ALBUM#Professional_reviews. Take London Calling, for example—only one of the items under London_Calling#Critics.27_praise is sourced in a usual way, because the sources for all of the other claims are in the infobox. Ditto, say The Wall. The RIAA claim in the opening paragraph gets a footnote, but the charting information there and further down in the article does not. It has no reference in the footnotes, because its source is AMG, which is in the infobox. Many editors unfamiliar with the Albums project might expect it to be in a "references" section or under "external links" the way it is in most articles. --Moonriddengirl 00:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So are you referring to people incorrectly using piped external links instead of an inline reference citation? --lincalinca 03:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for providing context, Gimmetrow, as the conversation was growing fairly confusing. :) I think changes of that nature should be immediately challenged if not sourced. The Billboard standing has reference, but the other material doesn't seem to. I would probably drop a  tag on the section instead of dotting the whole thing with fact tags, though. :) And I agree that All Music information needs to be used carefully, but it's not completely unreliable. The charting information comes directly from Billboard. See Yellow Submarine, for instance. It's also valuable when using the review or overview to note who wrote it in determining how trustworthy it is. The review of that one is by Richie Unterberger, for instance, who is pretty reliable. As a sometimes contributor to AMG, I know that information is vetted...if not perfectly. :)  I've been trying to get them to correct the song information on Puscifer for some time, but no matter how much information I supply, nobody's listening. :P Sometimes when I submit a correction, it goes right through. Strange and mysterious are the ways. --Moonriddengirl 13:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peak chart position 

message: An user has added a Times Online review to the infobox of the latest Radiohead album. As the source of the review is not listed on our "professional reviews" list, I wonder whether we should leave it or get rid of it. The review in itself is nothing extraordinary, and sounds more like a blog post rather than a professional analysis of the album IMO. I've tried removing it once but it's been re-added by the same user. I'd like your opinion on this matter before I go any further. --Emc² • contact me 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i'd consider it a pretty kosher professional review, what with Times Online basically just being the web arm of the Times, which is most definitely a reputable source. When superceded by a print review (which for a Radiohead album there will certainly be) it could probably be dropped for reasons of space/superfluity, tho. cheers, tomasz. 13:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ALBUM#Review sites is not intended to be an exclusive list. The criteria for review sites are at the first paragraph at WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews. --PEJL 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a Times Online review worth including? 

message: I thought some of you might be interested in this discussion; how many, if any, album covers can or should be included in band articles within the constraints of our fair use policy? --John 05:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album covers in band articles, yet again 

message: Just wanted to note that we've got quite a backlog on a number of different gnoming jobs. I've been working on assessing articles and have probably done a couple of hundred (give or take a few dozen), but as of October 11th, we had 33,666 articles to be assessed. (Wow!) If you find yourself on Wikipedia with nothing to do, this might be a good use of time. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! I've been busily assessing albums for about a week now, and we've gone from 33,666 articles to assess to...<drumroll, please>...33,737! Yay! Help?   :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe just get someone with bot access to do it, since you'll be there forever. They can set a parameter that if it has the subheader "track listing" and a # in the next 30 characters, the article is within a certain size, it gets labelled as a stub, if it has personnel, it's a start class, and so on and so forth. Jogers? You seem o-fay with that sort of stuff. --lincalinca 02:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance backlog 

message: If someone changes for example an EP into a single, they may think they can do this by simply changing the type in an album infobox to single, rather than changing it into . This works a little too well, since it gets the correct yellow background color. I propose we make Type=single generate a peachpuff color and add the article to :Category:Non-standard album infoboxes and :Category:Needs single infobox conversion, so that these articles can be converted. Any objections? --PEJL 10:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds good to me. tomasz. 15:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done so in the sandbox, which will hopefully be applied soon. --PEJL 17:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --PEJL 10:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe we should have changed it to display "you're using teh wrong infobox" as the type. -Freekee 02:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe even make it an obnoxious colour?--lincalinca 03:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I agree, but in this case lots of such articles currently exist, and breaking those will mostly hurt readers, not editors. --PEJL 10:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get a bot to post on the editor's page that they need to fix the parameter? Can a bot be made that quick and intuitive? --lincalinca 02:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a minute, I thought that was a great idea. But even if it could be done (which I doubt), it's probably not a good idea. I wonder if users who monitor the category mentioned above, could place a notice on usertalk pages? -Freekee 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make Type=single generate peachpuff 

message: for a prod. thanks, tomasz. 15:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: can i get an admin?

message: I didn't get a response at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles), so I'll try here. At the beginning of an article, should the quotation marks around a song title be in bold ("Song Title"), or just the song title itself, with the quotation marks not in bold ("Song Title"). I've been putting the quotation marks in bold, but I've seen it done the other way as well. Eco84 | Talk 19:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotation marks should not be in boldface, per WP:MOS#Quotation marks. I've expanded WP:SONG#Formatting to explain this. --PEJL 20:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about quotation marks for articles about songs/singles

message: EPs fall under the jurisdiction of this project because they are collections of songs just like albums are. But since they're collections of songs, shouldn't they  use the same colors that albums use, in the infobox? EPs can be live or studio recordings or even compilations, just like full-length albums. I think showing whether the recording is studio or live is far more informative than showing the length. Do we really need to keep up this separation? -Freekee 03:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the colors are secondary to the type displayed in the infobox. What would we display in the infobox for studio/live/compilation EPs? "EP", "Live EP" and "Compilation EP"? --PEJL 12:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would maintain the distinction because if you go into a CD store, most places have seingles and albums separated, but have interdispersed EPs throughout the store because they don't know how to differentiate them. Different countries chart EPs in the singles chart, others in the albums chart, I may be wrong, but I understand that there's at least one country that actually has an EP chart, separate from Singles (SPs) and Albums (LPs). For these reasons, I believe it should maintain distinct from LPs. Though I do believe many should indicate if an EP is a live one, a compilation one or a purpose-recorded EP (as I believe most would be, until later in successful careers... whoops, a bit of OR there). --lincalinca 13:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I intended it to still be called "EP," but use the album colors. I didn't quite think it through, I guess, since this would require a new field in the template for album vs. EP, so we could maintain the proper color and title. Since I don't have a bot to change all the existing infoboxes, I won't push for this change. I wonder how long it would take to change 60,000 articles... -Freekee 00:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think the type displayed is more important than the color. The colors are only useful once readers have learned what the colors mean, by recognizing a pattern. The pattern is made less clear if "EP" can have different colors, as opposed to just one color. So if we wish to distinguish live EPs from studio EPs, we should do so using the type displayed as well as the color. If we were to do this, we wouldn't need a new field, we could just use new values for the existing "Type" field (such as "live ep"). --PEJL 09:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand whatall you're saying. "The type displayed" meaning the word album or EP, and the color is almost incidental? To me, the color pattern is clear - lightsteelblue for studio records, and that brown color for live records. At this time, I have to read the article to determine if an EP is live, studio or comp (and if it doesn't say, I have to assume a studio recording). I would prefer different colors, or even words in the type line ("Live EP by artist"). And adding new supported types would do this. Keeping the pinkish color for EPs would still be an improvement over what we have now, and IMO, changing the colors to match the album colors would be better still. -Freekee 04:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that if we are to distinguish studio/live/compilation EPs using different colors, we should also distinguish them using the type phrase (currently "EP by artist"), just like we do with "Studio album by artist", "Live album by artist" and "Compilation album by artist". Colors are only useful to readers who know what they mean, while the type phrase is useful to all readers. This would also be consistent with how we treat albums, and help readers learn what the colors mean. We could introduce "studio ep", "live ep" and "compilation ep" as valid types, and keep supporting "ep" for compatibility with existing articles. --PEJL 09:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. -Freekee 15:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPs in the infobox 

message: Doesn't seem like there are a whole lot of people hanging around here lately. What's up, people? Anybody lurking? -Freekee 04:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As always! I'm just pottering around wondering what I can add to my current little projects, but I'm always interested in the goings on around here. --lincalinca 08:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *holla! i'm gnoming about, trying to clear AlexNewArtBot's album lists, uncategorised albums, and whatnot. tomasz. 09:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am! I'm still working on assessing album articles. I'm also creating a couple here and there and today have spent quite a bit of time contributing to music related AfDs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  *Waves* hi! 

message: There are currently about 1,300 'fair use' album cover images under dispute at this point.  Assistance in adding the appropriate fair use rationale would be greatly appreciated!  The list of the album cover images can be found here User:Jogers/List6.  Thanks!  SkierRMH 19:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a look at it. I'll work from the bottom up, if you want, to make sure we don't tread on one another's toes? --lincalinca 01:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: — on a related topic, anyone know what the :Template:album cover article rationale template is? i saw it somewhere and have added it to a couple of images, but i noticed it wasn't in the Fair Use rationales category or mentioned in the Jogers instructions, etc. is it ok to use? tomasz. 02:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. I didn't know there was a template for that. I've been pasting that same text in, often with minor alterations. -Freekee 04:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It ought to be fine. It's mentioned on the project page at WP:ALBUMS#Cover. :) I use it all the time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I just whipped that up based off of the usual FU rationales I saw around a long time ago. I've only had it rejected once, and since then I updated it to try and go with the guidelines at WP:NONFREE. -- Reaper  X 04:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There's also Template:Album cover fur, which is a bit more customisable if you want it. Papa November 10:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image purge

message: I'm trying to make Songs sections for albums where there's too much info to intersperse with track lists, but not enough for decent stub articles. I couldn't find a recommended format, but maybe I didn't look hard enough. Here's what I ended up doing:
*One of These Nights#Songs – song title in Level 2 headings
*Mob Rules (album)#Songs – as definition list
Which of the above are preferable? Is there a guideline for this that I've missed? / edg ☺ ★ 15:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all the track names should be in quotes in both formats. A minor issue is that the quotation marks shouldn't be bold (per WP:MOS#Quotation marks and now WP:SONG#Formatting), but we may want to make an exception in this case, since there isn't any easy way to unbold them. "Tracks" or "Track information" might be a better name for the section (for consistency with "Track listing", and because tracks aren't always vocal). --PEJL 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song section preferred format 

message: Still-untitled record was created earlier today. I originally tagged it as a speedy, but there may be notable musicians involved, so I removed the speedy. The odd thing is it's referred to as a forthcoming album for a band whose article was deleted, Cavalera Conspiracy, but whose members all have wikipedia pages. I'm kind of at a loss for how to proceed. Obviously, if the article is to stay, there need to be sources, a different title, wikifying, the whole nine yards. Any help greatly appreciated. Tromboneguy0186 01:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cavalera Conspiracy article was deleted on grounds of copyright infringement (Speedy, no less), if that helps. I would guess that there ought to be such an article, and then an album by that band would deserve to exist. An article about a future album, however, is a different question. And even if it does stay, it needs a little work, like a  tag, and a proper name. -Freekee 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kind of a weird situation 

message: I've began noticing this something strange about the soundtrack infoboxes. There's large amount of spacing the column name and their corresponding info. Example: Yu-Gi-OH! Duel Monsters: DUEL VOCAL BEST!!. Is it just me or has someone messed with the infobox formating? Sarujo 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problem. Can you make a screenshot and let us know what web browser you are using? --PEJL 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Make a screenshot?  Like this? Well, I'm using Internet Explorer. Sarujo 04:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found the problem. Apparently our template breaks when an album name (or likely any infobox field) includes a double exclamation point. See Template:Infobox Album/testcases#Known problems. I've added a workaround to the album article in question, and will try to find a fix for the template. --PEJL 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To fix this problem in the template we probably need to convert it to use HTML rather than wikicode. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Template escaping issue. I'm going to prototype such a conversion, to see if this can be done while keeping the template maintainable. --PEJL 20:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done so in the sandbox. It looks quite maintainable to me. Any objections to applying this? --PEJL 15:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Infobox Glitch 

message: You let somebody like Piero Scaruffi in, but not George Starostin? What's the deal? 76.200.180.229 03:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We let anybody in. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anybody can edit. But we do kick out people who mess up the articles. -Freekee 04:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm sorry, but what? 

message: Hi. My question is about the personnel section on Chinese Democracy. What should be used? This or how it is now. Funeral 22:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean whether to use real section headings or to fake them using bold text? If sub-sections are to be used, then real section headings should be used, per WP:MOS#Section headings and WP:MOSBOLD#Boldface. --PEJL 22:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting question 

message: What happened to this article? An overly cascading list of stuffs-from different version of album's tracklisting to singles chronology. It's not a standard way of writing an article about an album I think. --BandB (talk•contribs)  08:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: I've nominated some maintenance categories for renaming (skipping :Category:Albums without a by-year category for now per #uncat albums):
:Category:Needs album infobox           	→ :Category:Album articles needing infoboxes
:Category:Needs album infobox conversion	→ :Category:Album articles needing infobox conversion
:Category:Non-standard album infoboxes  	→ :Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes
You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page. --PEJL 13:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfR notification 

message: It would be nice if this page explained how to edit a template (or pointed to a page where you can learn how to edit templates). In the template I'm concerned with, the name of the band is not listed in its entirety. How can go in and change the template so the name appeard correctly? And suppose I want the template to be used for live as well as studio albums? How do I fix that? Griot 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which template? The main template for this project is , which has instructions on how to edit it. --PEJL 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to change the info inside the template on this page. Instead of "Studio album," I want it to say "Album." Instead of "Mink DeVille," I want it to say "Willy DeVille/Mink DeVille." Instead of "Mink DeVille chronology" I want it to say "Willy DeVille\Mink DeVille chronology." Somewhere, somehow on wikipedia, someone created this template to say what it says. How do I go to the Mink DeVille template and change it? Griot 22:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind! Figured it out. My bad. Apologies to all. Griot 22:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Instructions for Editing a Template?

message: Didn't we just have a discussion about Category:Album articles without cover art? It's up for "discussion." -Freekee 02:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we did, back in August. I've noted this at the CfD, because the commenters seemed to think that this category could be applied to talk pages, which it can't for technical reasons. --PEJL 15:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically if we were fans of having a bot update every article it's shown on, then it could be put onto the talk page, but it's too much hassle trying to write the code for the bot to follow, especially since it's completely unnecessary. --lincalinca 12:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's basically the conclusion I came to at the previous CfD. There is a suggestion at the current CfD to use a bot-maintained list, which sounds workable. --PEJL (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to be consensus for deletion in my opinion. Bot-maintained list doesn't seem workable at all because it would require loading tens of thousands articles on a regular basis. Jogers (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CFD

message: Hey Guys! I'm trying to fix  in the graphical sense, but can't seem to figure out how. What I'm trying to do is make sure the rows all appear as the same heigh, but every so often, the lines get blown out in size (see some of the articles that links there to see what I'm talking about). Anybody know how this can be fixed, retaining the knockout function (i.e. the way that it doesn't show unnecessary lines). --lincalinca 12:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coding help with artist discog template 

message: * From the main page guidelines - Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album.  Can someone provide a link to where this consensus was made?  Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That guideline has been on the main page for as long as I've been on Wikipedia, so it could be a while finding out. Maybe try to find when it was added to the page. Can I ask what's wrong with this being in place?  --lincalinca 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - there's nothing wrong with it, infact the reverse!  I was just wondering where the discussion(s) were for it.  Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, fair enough. Well, yeah, I'd be inclined to believe you're looking between mid 2004-late 2005, but can't really be much more specific without doing the scouring of the history myself. --lincalinca 14:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply.  I was trying to get some background on the consensus to create a similar one for films by director at WP:FILM.  Thanks again! Lugnuts (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albums by artist categories 

message: I was wondering if someone could help me. I want to add a personnel section to Spirit (Leona Lewis album) but what should I do in a situation where credits for a particular song say "all instruments by..."? Your help on this matter is appreciated, thank you. anemone|projectors 12:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd probably word it just as so. One thing about that article, I think you need to break the production/tracks section down into subsections. It's a very long section without any refrain. But yeah, just list "All instruments on "Love Shack" performed by L. Shack" or something like that. When it comes down to it, it's up to you. --lincalinca 12:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Is it just me, or is that album cover uncannily alike to As I Am by Alicia Keys, which only came out the other day? Interesting. --lincalinca 12:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help. What subsections could you suggest? It was in three sections before, "Produciton", "Style" and "Tracks" but it was a bit all over the place so I merged all three. As for the album covers, I saw a website a while back that compared the album covers of Spirit, As I Am and Delta to Mariah Carey and another Carey album (can't remember which). So it's interesting that you would say that. anemone|projectors 13:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, I forgot about Delta (which is a feat considering how much time I spend in music shops, and all of them being in Delta's hometown of the Eastern Suburbs of Melbourne). I think those titles are fine, other than "tracks" (yuck), but you're right, going through the history, it was a bit of a duplicious shamble. I'd suggest getting to the barebones facts, figuring out what's production, style and probably prefacing that with a "background" section (in which you could go into some songwriting information that details the songs included; generally, I avoid the word "track" unless I'm specifically referring to the sequencing on the CD or vinyl; I think it sounds horrid to refer to a song as a track, we're not talking about horseraces). --lincalinca 13:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was hard enough getting it in the shape its in now! I can't do any more... but I will change "track" to "song". I'm working on the personnel section now. anemone|projectors 14:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't added any production personnel. I suppose I should do that too! Reading notes is hard sometimes, though. anemone|projectors 14:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personnel 

message: There's a similar debate going on about University rankings, and the same applies totally towards albums. It seems people only add review links which are either as high as they can find, or as low as they can find. This just makes the whole section a moot and non-objective exercise, and unless there's some establishing of which review sites to include, I think professional reviews should be removed (after all, we don't have them for films or books or TV shows - why music?). Surely I can't be the first person to raise this point? --Joewithajay (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, but the project consensus has been to keep them every time the discussion has been raised. A few things I should mention as to why. Firstly, I'll address your concern of the fact that the others don't include the reviews. You're right. But there are so many film reviewers out there, every man and his dog does it. With TV shows, it's the opposite. Album reviews are somewhere in between, meaning that generally they're of a healthier grade. That's how I see it. Now secondly, you're also right in saying that some list the high reviews, others the low to defame. That's the nature of Wikipedia, not just here. You mention that it's a non-objective exercise. I should point out that music appreciation is also a non-objective exercise. This also applies to all of the arts, but we're discussing albums here. As music appreciation is subjective, it's an objective requirement to indicate an items/article's subjectivity. Therein lies the reason we provide reviews. These reviews broaden the information by giving an element of human perspecive, something that cannot be objectively discerned with things of a creative or artistic nature. Another small reason they're useful is to provide additional referencing resources, though this is secondary to the other reasons. --lincalinca 02:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The application of reviews can be subject to WP:NPOV violations, but editors are supposed to strive for balance. If they don't, I think that's more of a problem with the editors than with the system in this particular case. Given that music is a creative exercise, reviews seem wholly appropriate to me. I wonder why they aren't used for films, books, or TV shows. Universities, I would imagine, could do without them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there is, of course, a list of potential professional review locations, though it is not restrictive. It's a pretty big list. Do you propose making it restrictive? Adding/removing? How would you determine which reviewers to include and which to exclude? What would you do about the musical genres that are not heavily represented in the typical sources, like jazz? (I do a lot with the old jazz guys, and finding anything on them is a challenge. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Since we added the rule about limiting the number of reviews in the infobox to ten, a number of articles have been converted to adhere to this rule. Applying the current guideline should be the primary solution. If we were to remove the reviews from the infobox, moving the reviews as-is into a separate section would probably be the easiest solution (and bot-scriptable). --PEJL (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? There's a guideline to only list 10 reviews? But shouldn't we be encouraging editors to use as many sources as necessary? This project has way too many guidelines.  To be honest, I'd rather we just ditch the list of reviews as it currently is: that Rolling Stone gave Sgt Pepper 5 stars, or that Christgau gave it an A, tells me bugger all on its own, and otherwise the list just serves as an indiscriminate collection of links (which I'm sure we're not supposed to do). But either way, I don't think the infobox is the best place to put them. Flowerparty☀ 23:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reviews in the infobox is not merely a link farm, since it does include info. If the reviews were used to construct the "critical reception" section, and used merely as references for the text, that would be different. In other words, using reviews as cited sources is different that using them to populate a list. -Freekee (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to point out, if we restricted the reviews to the select few places that review, it excludes some albums that may not receive much coverage or those who're niche (i.e. an indie-zydeco-ska group with an oboist as its leader would possibly get a recording, because there's a gap in the marketplace for such a group and their album may be notable enough for Wikipedia, but if Rolling Stone, AMG, New York Times and Robert Christgau don't review it, does that mean that those places that did review it should not be listed because our sacred few didn't make the cut? This is exactly where WP:IAR applies. --lincalinca 06:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency of professional reviews 

message: There is a conversation underway (ha! I amuse myself :)) to resolve the WP:MUSIC policy on songs. Current prevalent view subsequent to a now dormant discussion at village pump is to merge the song guideline with the album guideline with some recommended text changes. The conversation, such as it is, is here. I believe that this section, tagged as "under discussion", has been hanging around without discussion or resolution long enough and hope that you will help me settle it there one way or another. As it stands, nobody knows whether it has authority or not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:MUSIC guideline proposal