Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 3

message: I was fixing up The Kinks Discography, and I noticed that the singles list has thirty two entries, and only four articles. Is this normal? Should it be? Speaking as a Kinks fan, I can't imagine articles being written on half these songs, and I wouldn't link them. What do you all think about this? --Freekee 03:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable records and redlinks 

message: I just noticed this... The example infobox on this wikiproject page is different than the templated infobox shown. As you can see... it doesn't make a difference in terms of content, but the layout is different. Does it not matter? I think the layout should be consistent all throughout. What do you guys think?
{{Album infobox | 
| Name = 
| Type = 
| Artist = 
{{Album infobox |
  Name        = Dirt |
  Type        = Album |
  Artist      = Alice in Chains |
--Gflores 21:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel inspired to move the example's line-breaks over to the left, I can't see any reason why you shouldn't do so. --Jkelly 22:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I coincidently just noticed the same thing, and I changed it thinking it was no big deal, esp since I think it is easier to understand for those less familiar. I missed the fact that there was a question here about it; my watchlist just said 'question'. If anyone feels that it is better the other way, with the "|" at the end of each line, feel free to change it back. --Qirex 22:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: That example was added all the way back in 2002, and while it may have been suitable then, standards of quality have changed. (1) It suffers from excessive wikilinking, (2) it mostly reads like a list, (3) the language is flamboyant. I think it should be replaced or simply removed. Smile is the only featured article that is about an album, so we may be able to draw from it. --Jiy (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Switching it to something else would be fine with me. --Tuf-Kat 04:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me too. --Qirex 04:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ziggy example needs to be replaced 

message: In another of those, "why didn't I notice that before?" moments, I realised that in the example infobox, there are links to October, as well as 1990 etc when not part of an entire date thing (ie, not as part of October 15, 1992). In the Manual of Style it states that these kinds of date links should not be used. Anyone mind if I remove the linking? --Qirex 04:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MoS-conflicts in example infobox 

message: Should longform music videos, such as The Band's The Last Waltz or the Talking Heads' Stop Making Sense, be considered within the scope of WP:ALBUM? I ask because I made some edits recently to Live in Chicago (Jeff Buckley) and thought it would be really useful to have an album-info type infobox, but found that one didn't seem to exist. So, I put it to you: should longform music videos be included in the definition of "albums" and given their own infobox and category, or should they continue to exist in the nebulous unstandardized space between music and film? --keepsleep  05:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longform videos 

message: What's the recommended way of adding the time? Should it be xx min xx s or mm:ss? From what I've seen, most are using the former. Does it even matter? --Gflores 04:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This wound up being discussed pretty thoroughly a while ago at Template talk:Album infobox. The consensus was to use mm:ss. Many templates have yet to be updated. --Jkelly 04:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see... Maybe this should be emphasized more somehow, b/c just looking at a few of the infoboxes recently created or converted, most are xx min xx s. If we're going to be updating all to mm:ss, then we probably shouldn't be creating them incorrectly, don't you agree? --Gflores 04:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Recent creations should be following the instructions at the project page (or the template page, for that matter). You might want to direct anybody you have noticed creating new ones with the deprecated system to the conversation at Template talk:Album infobox --Jkelly 04:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  another question 

message: I noticed User:Noboyo has been changing some articles' album infoboxes to a non-standard type that has additional fields (executive producers, album certification, chart position) and also changed the infobox color to a color that matches the album cover. The articles in question are the following:
*PCD (album)
*Roc-A-Fella Presents: Teairra Mari
*Chapter 3 : The Flesh
*The First Lady
*Complicated (album)*
*Goodies (album)
*Moodring
*Raydiation
*Libra (2005 album)
*I Care 4 U
*It's About Time (album)
*Confessions (2004 album)
*Damita Jo
*Simply Deep
*Dangerously in Love
*Full Moon (album)
*Afrodisiac
*After The Storm
I think something similar was done to the Madonna albums a while back. --Teklund 09:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of those albums hadn't had infoboxes to begin with, so I gave them all templated ones and left a message about WP:ALBUM on the user's talk page. --User:Keepsleeping 16:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-standard infoboxes 

message: I noticed on some album pages there are covers of the next/previous album in the chronology. example: Blackacidevil. Is it recommended to start doing this from now on? What is the code for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gflores (talk • contribs) 18:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See  --Jkelly 18:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly not "recommended," as there's no consensus for its use and significant opposition, particularly on "fair use" grounds. --Monicasdude 19:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... so why do some users continue to use them if there's such a debate around them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gflores (talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there was a vote for deletion on the template and it failed. Therefore it's still free to use. I don't know about recommended, but it's fair game. Where it says "infobox" when editing an album box, just add "2" to it. I'd simply follow any of the hundreds of album articles that uses it to create you own if you wish. --BGC 21:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it's not. Changing from albumbox 1 to albumbox 2 is against the project recommendations, and doing it repeatedly borders vandalism. Also according to albumbox 2 deletion vote, 16 users wanted keep it and 20 delete it. I excluded IPs and newly created accounts from count, as it is usually done in Wikipedia votes. This means that you have no grounds pushing albumbox 2 to articles. --Hapsiainen 10:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where you get the idea that it "borders [on] vandalism". It adds value to the articles that are converted from infobox1 to infobox2 (at least when more is done than simply replacing "1" with "2", e.g. - actually taking the time to include album covers). --Locke Cole 10:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally like infobox 2 (but I don't think its deletion is the topic of debate). I am confused though by the conflicting statements as to whether it's okay to use it. It seems common sense to me that if it is against project recommendations, it should be deleted, and that since it's not (and already survived nomination relatively recently), it's okay to use. But where does it say that infobox 2 is against recommendations? There is a distinction to be made between an idea being recommended against and an idea not recommended (ie, just the absense of recommendation). The debate for deletion is here, incase anyone wants to read over it (I wish I could add my vote). --Qirex 11:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the template contravenes Fair Use copyright law, then votes on wikipedia have no jurisdiction or validity over it whatsoever. It shouldn't be used. Some wiki users unfounded opinions make no difference. There's no more to be said. --feline1 11:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK Wikipedia is ran by consensus (with exceptions such as where Jimbo weighs in). Right now the consensus seem to think infobox2 is fine. If there were fair-use concerns, surely they should have been brought up when it was proposed for deletion. If they weren't (or were refuted or not convincing enough), then that leaves me with the impression that the consensus supports the template and that it should be used wherever it is practicle. --Locke Cole 11:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia might be run by consensus, but lawsuits against wikipedia would be run according to US Law (if that's where wikipedia is hosted). Believe it or not, US Law was not formulated by a few fanboys and computer nerds having "votes" with about 30 participants. The defence that "but Jimmy, age 17 and a half, High School student from Ohio, said Infobox2 was cool!" is not gonna stand up in court /rollseyes/ --feline1 12:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There's consensus that albumbox 1 is appropriate to use on Wikipedia. The best that can be said about infobox 2 is that there's no consensus that it's appropriate to use, that in discussion more editors have opposed than supported its use, and that its use contravenes several broader guidelines supported by consensus. And Jimbo Wales has weighed in on the more general issue recently, calling on editors to avoid the unnecessary insertion of images claimed as "fair use." --Monicasdude 13:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: albumbox 1 is irrelevant. And I disagree about your view on albumbox 2-- the fact that it faced a deletion attempt and survived tells me that the consensus is that it's OK for use as a replacement to albumbox 1. If it were in violation of the guidelines and rules I don't see how it could have survived. Just about the only thing we seem to agree on is that if Jimbo were to weigh in, his word would decide it. But for the moment, I don't believe it's unnecessary, the images are functionally useful as a navigation aid. But that's just my opinion: equal in status to yours and feline1's. --Locke Cole 13:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with my understanding. It is you who can't seem to appreciate the difference between purely internal wikipedia affairs, and those where it has to interface with the outside legal world. This is the latter case, and what we would require is a consensus of external legal opinion, not a consensus of wiki users. --feline1 13:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "If it were in violation of the guidelines and rules I don't see how it could have survived." - your premise here is entirely false. You are assuming that wikiusers never make mistakes (why would we ever need to edit anything then?!) and that all competant people always vote on every issue put forward (which, if could count the numbers of votes versus the numbers of wikiusers, is clearly nonsense). --feline1 13:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate it just fine, but I also appreciate that so far nobodies presented a legal argument other than their opinion on the laws right now. In the absense of a legal authority, consensus is all we have. Or are you suggesting we simply avoid fair-use images altogether since clearly we can't get a legal opinion on every case? Why is just this usage of fair-use drawing your ire while all the other images floating around in articles don't seem to bother you? --Locke Cole 15:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I'm assuming that the consensus system in place is working, and that a majority of wiki users believe album infobox2 is within Wikipedia's guidelines or else they wouldn't have accepted it. It is you who seem to be trying to buck the system here and impose your own opinion over the opinions of those who reached said consensus. --Locke Cole 15:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have the logic of the situation bass ackwards! We KNOW the law exists, we KNOW that copyright subsists in the images we are using - it is therefore, in the eyes of the law, beholden upon WIKIPEDIA to actively seek legal advice as to whether its actions fall within Fair Use! You cannot instead say 'well none of us could make up our minds, and we're none of us legally competant to make a decision in the first place either anyways, so we just thought we'd plough on ahead regardless'. 'Get Real', in fact. --feline1 16:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, maybe you don't understand fair-use, but it's often very subjective and each instance of fair-use needs to be handled differently. You can't just say "no fair-use images in a template" because there's simply no legal basis for that assertion (or if there is, it hasn't been asserted to me, and I'd happily read up on something if I was simply given some proof that this isn't just someone spouting off legalese to get things done their way). IMO the onus is on the people trying to stop the usage of this template to prove that it's usage violates fair-use. Otherwise Wikipedia will never get anything done if everything has to be scrutinized legally before being tried.. --Locke Cole 16:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to get more than a majority of votes to be allowed to delete a template. For deleting an article the proportion is two-thirds, for becoming an admin the threshold is 75-80 %. I'm not sure what the threshold is for templates, but it can't be anything less. Like I already said, the majority wanted to delete the template, but there wasn't enough of them to have it deleted. The non-fair use rationale is now in the discussion archive 4, I think that the discussion was moved there too early. But here is a link to it. "Never copy more of a copyrighted work than is necessary to make your point understood. The more you borrow, the less likely it will be considered fair use." "Do not quote from a copyrighted work simply to "enliven" your text. Make certain you comment upon the material you borrow or can otherwise justify its use." "Being a non-profit educational institution does not let you off the hook. Even non-commercial users can be sued if the use exceeds the bounds of fair use." --Hapsiainen 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority?  It was 19 votes to 19. Dead even. --BGC 01:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you count sockpuppets and votes which didn't comply with the voting guidelines on the TfD page. --Monicasdude 02:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. And they're valid. --BGC 03:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox2? 

message: The regard the guidelines tell us we should all have for professional reviews does not take into account:
1. The appalling standard of album reviews often found in all leading organs of the music and national press. This has frequently happened because:
a) These organs allow hugely unqualified individuals to write them with little or no expertise, musical, literary or otherwise. 
b) Many reviewers didn't like the artist they reviewed nor their work.
c) Some reviewers produced their views under the influence of hallucenagenic drugs.
2. As a consequence of "1." above, thousands of professional reviews since the origin of rock/pop music are of no use whatsoever to readers of Wikipedia and further, will actually be harmful; yet we as writers are supposed to use them.
I feel strongly that many Wik writers/editors will be better placed to write informed opinions and analyses of rock and pop artists and their albums than many of these "so-called" professionals and should be encouraged to avoid leaning heavily upon their work.
(though as a writer not currently working for the national press, 'I would say that, wouldn't I?' - however, this does not invalidate the points made above. --Thoss 00:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I may not disagree with the sentiment, please see Wikipedia:No original research, which is pretty much non-negotiable. --Jkelly 01:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the O.R rule excludes this anyway, but one other issue to bear in mind is that when fans etc write reviews, it is invariably baised, and the album seems to always recieves either the lowest score available or the highest. Just look at the misleading and often ridiculous reviews at sites such as rateyourmusic.com --Qirex 02:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why we should try to link to many reviews from each album's article. People can read the reviews for themselves and decide what they accept and what they ignore. --Rhobite 02:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious Professional Reviews 

message: I just removed the album cover in our example template set-up. I would really, really like it if someone knew of an album cover that is licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain, because I think that the "Nocover.gif" doesn't do justice to the template. Unfortunately, though, Wikipedia:Fair use policy disallows it. Any ideas? --Jkelly 03:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have two possible ideas, but I don't know if either is any good. Someone could make a mock-up album cover with the name of a non-existant band. It wouldn't be hard, and I could do it if you want, but not for a few weeks until my good computer with photoshop etc returns from being borrowed. The other possibility is just using some image from wikimedia commons, but it probably won't look much like an album cover. Still, would be probably be better than nocover.gif. --Qirex 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I have a couple of friends who are in the business of making album covers, but none of the bands involved would pass WP:MUSIC. If someone would like to be bold and put in a Commons image temporarily, I'd encourage them in it. --Jkelly 04:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an appropriately licensed mockup; even though it uses a real artist's name, I think it's so self-evidently a spoof that there'd be no problem (except with my sense of humor)  Of course, if you like it and want to use it, you'll have to change the text in the sample infobox . . . --Monicasdude 04:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we can recruit User:Fastfission to draw a mockup similiar to his fabulous :Image:Fair use icon - Movie poster.png, :Image:Fair use icon - Book.png, etc. --Jiy (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "fair use" image 

message: I created a new template, Template:Album infobox soundtrack, and have outlined the whys and hows on the talk page, along with a question about how it should be. Please comment if you have a problem with it / don't like it / do like it / think it should be deleted / have suggestions / etc. --Qirex 12:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template for soundtrack albums 

message: What's the protocol for dealing with legitimately issued albums that don't sequence naturally, often because they show up from artists' original labels after their contracts have expired and they've signed elsewhere.  Right now, for example, the Van Morrison chronology and discography omit the 1974 LP "TB Sheets," which included a significant amount of new material. The Grateful Dead discography and chronology miss "Vintage Dead," which was released in 1970 but predates the band's first studio album. There are lots of other examples out there. The chronology section doesn't address whether albums should be listed in release order or recording order; the practice seems to be release order. For artists in the pop/rock mainstream, there usually isn't much difference, but if/when the project turns some serious attention to major jazz musicians, there'll be a lot more variance.And while I'm here, I'm noticing that there's not a lot of consistency in albumboxes as to whether albums initially issued on LP (but not CD) should be termed "albums" or "LPs".  I would think the more format-specific tag would be a better choice; it's a bit more informational, and, as more historical articles are written about earlier musical releases, more specific format information will quite often be appropriate. --Monicasdude 03:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree about the LP/Album issue. I think the generic "Album" term should be used instead of the specific format of the release. New albums are often released in different formats simulaneously — should we then clutter the infobox with something like "LP/CD/DVD-A"? Old Beatles albums may have been released as LPs originally, but does that mean we simply ignore their subsequent reissues on CD? The generic "Album" avoids any of these slight POV issues of favoring one format over another in the infobox. It is informative to note that an album was originally released on LP, but that can be done in the article body. —Jiy (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if I'm just way uneducated about that era of music, but I never really equated 'LP' with 'vinyl'; I just thought of 'LP' as 'long play', synoymous with 'album'. So, I guess it makes little difference to me which term is used, except for issues of consistency etc. With regards to the first point, I think that whatever system is logical for each artist should be used. Mostly, the release date should be used. But where it's appropriate, such as in the above examples presented, the recording date should be used. I don't see a great need for rigid, unworkable rules. --Qirex 10:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology issues and others 

message: If :Category:Fooband albums and :Category:Fooband singles exist (as per current guidelines), should they be parented by :Category: Fooband or not? Please add to discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Any_consensus_on_categories?. --pfctdayelise 02:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on category conventions 

message: A constant debate within the stub sorting community focuses on the criteria for deciding when an article is not a stub any longer and the stub template can be removed. At present there are a couple of guidelines for this among them being article length and degree to which the article covers the topic area; however, the guidelines are sufficiently fuzzy (which is ok) that a wide range of interpretations emerges, sometimes resulting in elevated blood pressures.
I believe that topical WikiProjects have a role in the decision making process as to when an article in their topic area should be considered a stub article or not.
I suggest that this WikiProject address the stub criteria matter in the context of  and any childdren of this stub type that might emerge (see WP:WSS/ST#Music for a listing of stub types in the music topic area). I would suggest the following checklist as a guide to stub sorters and editors in general; if all items are able to be checked off as "present", the article should no longer be considered a stub article. The main purpose of this guideline would be to help regain the purpose of the stub template as a call for editorial action, allowing editors to re-focus on those articles that do not meet the minimum guideline-suggest content for this article type; the :Category:Album stubs contains about 3000 articles (15 pages) at present.
:(Draft) Checklist of album-article contents for guidance as to whether an article should be labeled a stub or not
:*  present (need not be filled completely)
:* album cover image present
:* record label present
:* album title present
:* article has been placed into the appropriate sub-categories of :Category:Albums by artist, :Category:Albums by year and :Category:Albums by genre
:*: this implies the presence of information on the artist, release date and genre in the infobox and/or article body
Thank you for considering this. I do not anticipate that implementation of these guidelines would lead to a dramatic reduction in the number of stubbed articles overnight, but I think there are definite advantages in coupling the aims of a topical WikiProject and the efforts of the stub sorting community. Regards, Courtland 14:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graduation from stub-status 

message: Taking a look at Power in Numbers, the version shown looks like it would no longer be a stub; however, it has not been categorized according to genre, though the genre is present in the infobox. I have added the category (see version) but left the stub template present pending outcome of this discussion. --Courtland 14:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Application of the guideline

message: What is wikipedia's policy on bootlegs having articles? Several already due such as A Skateboard Party. Bootlegs have existed for a while but soon after cd burners and printers were common many cd-r bootlegs came out which are certainly not noteworthy at all. However many original and unique pressed bootlegs have been released years ago. Most bootlegs usually have clones aswell. Blue Moon Records and a few other companies were big producers of such bootlegs until they got raided. Added them all would be horrid for band articles and the more articles needed for the bootlegs? Perhaps 1 page per band with all the more common bootlegs? Or just only allow their mention if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NCase (talk • contribs) 04:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general rule of thumb, only mention a bootleg if the group itself put it out. And even then, don't give it an article unless it's a very very important recording of theirs. --FuriousFreddy 02:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A bootleg released by a group sounds like an oxymoron... I'd choose notable performances for inclusion. I'd vote for Keep, if it was ever VFDed. --Madchester 06:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some acts release unofficial albums that they don't want to release through the record company (I think Prince has done this, for example). --FuriousFreddy 01:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bootleg Albums? 

message: Taking a look at forty stubbed articles, here is the breakdown based on the proposed recommendation mentioned above, it looks like that a) the % of mis-classified articles is low and b) about 50% of the stubbed articles can graduate with only a little bit of work.
*pass stub-graduation test (4 → 10%)
** A Lethal Dose of American Hatred (needs a bit of formatting cleanup), Face Value, G N' R Lies, God Loves Ugly
pass test except for ... (13 → 32.5%) 
*needs additional categorization
** A Man Called E, First Light (album), From the Ashes, Growing Out of It, Honest (soundtrack), Kite (2001 album), Pagan (album), Pixel Revolt
*needs genre
** A Kiss in the Dreamhouse, Fabrique, Flag (Yello album)
*needs genre and additional categorization
** From the Land of Volcanos, Once Bitten
fail stub-graduation test (remainder → 57.5%): A Hard Road, A Life Less Plagued, A Little More Personal (Raw), A Little Soul in Your Heart, A Lot About Livin' (And a Little 'Bout Love), A Lot of Little Lies For the Sake of One Big Truth, A Lump of Coal, Fables & Dreams, First (album) (needs translation), From Wishes to Eternity, Girls' Night Out, Heart Food, I Phantom, Infame, Jester Race, Legs XI, Live Heroes, Lost & Found, Maldita Vecindad y los Hijos del Quinto Patio, Metallic K.O., Mothball Mint, Neat, Neat, Neat, No World Order
--Courtland 18:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of wrongly stubbed album articles is pretty low because I went through all albums stubs (in April, I think) ago and removed the stub notices along some personal guidelines that pretty much match the ones you propose above. Noone seems to have objected then, even though one user did ask about it later. You can see this exchange (with more of my reasoning) on my talk page and in Grenavitar's archive. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that maybe one or more people had done this, not only for this WikiProject but also for most of the other relatively active ones.  Thanks for confirming my suspicion.  My question then moves to one of whether there should be a communication between the general stub sorting community and this (as an example) WikiProject that refers non-WikiProject members to the specific "guidelines for graduation"?  I've already received some mild push-back over this as being potentially unworkable due to the large number of stub types, but I think it is likely workable for some of the larger stub categories which have quite active associated WikiProjects.  Thoughts? I could set down a few words that might appear on the WikiProject page and some more that might appear somewhere in the Stub Sorting realm if you think this would be a useful notion to pursue further. --Courtland 01:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: updated --Courtland 01:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forty 
Twenty
 almost-random stubs 

message: I created a template for wikiproject members to add to their user page. Template is here. Simply insert . --Gflores Talk 08:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Member Template 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. For example the article Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band looks close to A-class to me.  Are there any featured articles on albums? Can you suggest some A or decent B-class articles we might use? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 05:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: As I've been cleaning up articles and conforming infobox to guidelines, I've been removing wikilinks from years in the chronology sections of infoboxes, in accordance with MOS guidelines. When they turn up in the same sections, I've also been removing wikilinks from the "US" and "UK" notations, when release histories vary across markets, assuming that the same principle would apply. I've noticed other editors doing the same thing, sometimes in other sections of infoboxes as well. But I can't turn up a precise style guideline on this point. Any comments (particularly on whether such links should be removed from other sections of the infobox, as when US and UK editions have different release dates)? --Monicasdude 17:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to linking years, the links should be removed (as you do) in according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_formatting. As for US and UK, these usually should not appear in the infobox anyway (linked or unlinked), as infoboxes generally should only include the original release date in the infobox (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Details). --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, of course, about the original release point, but sometimes you get different editions released in different markets at the same time, or releases on different labels, as here . And variations across markets in release history, as here . I think the same principle about not wikilinking years in the chronology calls for not wikilinking the occasional US/UK notation, but would it apply in the main section of the box as well? --Monicasdude 17:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in infobox chronology sections