Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 18

message: Isn't it rather redundant to force a list of personnel at the end of an album article when all of the personnel is mentioned in the prose of the article? Teemu08 02:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is redundant information (as is the data in most infoboxes) but it is included for quick reference.  Papa November 1 10:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really redundant, I believe. It's a matter of summarising information that may not be as accessible as in list format. --lincalinca 12:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personnel

message: What are we to do when an album is by two or more musicians and we are chronologically ordering both musicians' albums? Thank you. (Mind meal 11:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean like this?--Fisherjs 11:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you give an example? You can use the  template to provide the second artist's chronology in the infobox.  See documentation for details. - Papa November 1 12:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology conflicts

message: There is currently a discussion underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_9#Category:Jazz_albums_by_artist. I believe that all :Category:Albums by artist should be broken down into genre+albums+by artist, as :Category:Jazz albums by artist has done. Nobody ever browses :Category:Albums by artist. If they want to find someone, they will just search for their article and look for a discography there. Please see :Category:Jazz albums to get a feel for what potential this wields. Far from impeding navigation, I believe this accelerates it in a much more useful manner. Otherwise, people have to just randomly click on an album title in say, :Category:Jazz albums, not knowing anything about it. Albums need major work in terms of categorization, and I think that this is a good first step. (Mind meal 15:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Jazz albums by artist]]

message: Proposal - Break down this category by genres, ie. :Category:Rock albums by artist.
:Vote options:
:Support indicates you support this proposal.
:Oppose indicates you do not support this proposal.
It is my belief that this category is absurdly large. I wonder why other categories this large become broken down, but this one remains so humongous? I would like to begin taking votes on whether we should begin breaking down albums by artist into specific genres (not subgenres). This currently is not permitted for some reason. Artists could still be placed in :Category:Albums by artist, depending on consensus. I will go first with my own vote:
*Support so that artist albums do not hog entire categories devoted to say, :Category:Rock albums. Instead, condense them into a dropdown category that is visible at :Category:Rock albums. If an artist strays from a genre, please see :Category:Paul McCartney classical albums on how to circumvent this conflict. (Mind meal 09:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that saying "some genre's aren't obvious ... i.e. death metal vs. doom metal vs black metal" is in itself a judgment call. The fact is those subgenres exist, and for a reason. For an encyclopedia, we sure seem to keep aiming for mediocrity when it comes to albums. And Mike, most artists perform in various subgenres, and sometimes various genres. I think subgenres should be included in our categorization hierarchy...absolutely. Have some faith in editors, everyone seems to assume that categorizing musicians correctly is not something Wikipedia can accomplish. I guess we'll never know if we are never to try. (Mind meal 16:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Albums by artist]]

message: Wondering if anyone can field this... Is this edit summary valid. "Live albums are listed by the year they were recorded, only studio albums are listed by the year they were released"??? Seems odd... I would have expected that by clicking "next album" I would get the next album recorded by the artist... Not a live performance recorded in one decade and released 4 decades later? Just hoping someone here could direct me to where that guideline is... thanks. 156.34.142.110 16:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect. Albums should be listed by the year of release, per WP:ALBUM#Chronology. --PEJL 21:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought as much. The user who made the edit, Rock Soldier, also edits as an IP and under another "Alterego" username. He is a very hard working editor who has contributed a lot. But tends to make up his own rules as he goes along and doesn't seem to have a hard grasp on many of Wiki's music related project guidelines. Perhaps someone could have a chat with him and give him some links back here to show exactly what rules should be adhered to. Have a nice day. 156.34.142.110 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick question about recent edit summary

message: Hey guys, just set up a new WikiProject. Check it out if you're interested.
--lincalinca 07:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably shouldn't use the non-free logo outside the article namespace as per criterion 9 of non-free content policy. Jogers (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although that's true, they're just guidelines and it does fall under fair use, legally speaking, as centrally, there's no free analogue present that would adequetly substitute the image. I'm working on one, but it's not ready yet. --lincalinca 10:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just letting you know in case you didn't know. There are certain editors who adhere to the policy very strictly and they have merciless bots :-) Jogers (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads up - Crowded House 

message: the one that is currently on the lead sails paper anchor page is incorrect. the real cover has a picture of a boat sinking in a black sea with part of a skeleton in the water with a red sky. i dont know how to upload it to this page but if any1 does the picture is at www.atreyurock.com
:Go to Special:Upload. It's kinda tough to work through, the first time, but just make sure you write a fair use rationale. Try . -Freekee 03:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  real album cover 

message: We need to do something about , which seems to render bogus results. See first, fourth and fifth example, which are all have half a star too high. --PEJL 01:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crazy. I know esoteric and complex functions, but don't know how to debug these kinds of things, because the scripts appear to be written correctly. --lincalinca 05:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This just started happening a few days ago. I noticed it too, and wasn't sure if I was entering information wrong at first. I never noticed this before just recently. Do we know who created this template? (Mind meal 16:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed it. --PEJL 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Psh. Nice one Eliyak. Nice of you to break it. Gosh!. Haha. Just messing. --lincalinca 12:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star rating template broken 

message: #Make a list article out of all the albums in a genre category, and include all useful contextual information. The list articles will need to be maintained, but missing one or two albums for a while is not a tragedy. If done well, they could be made into nice short histories of each subgenre, from another perspective.
#Link to them from each category page, using  or a purpose-designed template.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an extra step that is not necessary. Album categories themselves should be equipped to handle this, especially given how we are dealing with genres of music. Albums always fall under genres of music! It just does not make sense that we create lists from categories that themselves are incoherent. If the categories themselves can just be made navigable such actions as this aren't needed. This method still will not address the issue of categorizing. Pretending that lists can ever be as complete as categories is a fool's game. How many "other fixes" must we run down the gambit of before we can just vote on something outright? This method requires an endless amount of lists. Nothing we come up with is going to pe perfect, but I think we should try the route that most addresses the categorization gap itself. (Mind meal 06:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they can't. Categories aren't intended to do what you seem to want; and the present state of The Avant-Garde (album), with four categories the largest of which have two members, is simply silly.  17:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously aren't grasping any of this. Those categories are in their infancy you know. And I agree, the :Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums method was STUPID, but it was all I had to go with previously. Can squash this crap already? You see it your way, I've seen it mine. Categories are useful for browsing, I don't know why so many people enjoy pretending otherwise. (Mind meal 18:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then make a proposal, clearly, precisely, and with reasons. You may convince me; you may convince others. Abuse is unlikely to do either. I use cats myself, btw. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Your "technical fix" proposal is just fine. I'm not even going to venture proposing anything else. I've already thrown my support behind it, as I believe it to be a very good idea. (Mind meal 21:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I meant the previous suggestion. I have no problem, however, with lists accompanying categories as they do elsewhere. They help to know what albums are not yet on Wikipedia. (Mind meal 22:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another technical fix