Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 5

message: Hi, please excuse me if I ask a question that's already been answered. What does one place in the "discussion" session of an article on a single? Some pages I've come across have the album template there, which is an idea I support, but many do not. And I don't want to go around adding the album template if it shouldn't be there...thanks! --The-dissonance-reports 20:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Singles

message: A lot of times I have trouble finding the length of the song. I usually find each track length and then I add them up. Are there sites that have the album length so I don't have to use my poor math skills? :) I've found emusic has them, but their music collection is not very big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gflores (talk • contribs) 05:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the album length, if you have spreadsheet software (eg Excel), I'm pretty sure you could just enter all the track times into a column (write =TIME(HH:MM:SS) eg =TIME(0:3:28) - syntax may vary) then make a fomula at the bottom, something like =sum(a1:a12), and format all cells to show as time. Note that the only spreadsheet software I have is a copy of MS Works which is approx 11 years old, but the same or similar thing should work in other speadsheet software. This method is a bit time consuming, but accurate. --Qirex 07:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All Music sometimes lists the length. They also usually have the producers. Other than that, it's usually in the booklet. --Fritz S. 10:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All Music is frequently wrong with regards to track listings, track times, album times and labels, especially with older or more obscure releases Slicing 11:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  is very useful. --Flowerparty■ 14:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Winamp will also give you the time on CDs or MP3 album playlists.--み使い Mitsukai 18:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  length of album? 

message: For purposes of this encyclopedia, do mixtapes count as albums? For the uninitiated, mixtapes are unofficial underground releases, usually featuring hip hop music, R&B, reggae, etc, which are hand-made and distributed through the underground scene without the use of a major label (see  for a mixtape retail site). Most mixtapes are used to promote material that is either available on actual studio releases or will be at some future date. I nominated Fuck Death Row, a Snoop Dogg mixtape and/or bootleg, on AfD becasue I only get two or three relevant Google hits. --FuriousFreddy 05:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They might have a place on the article about the band/group but I don't think, as a general rule, they deserve a separate article. --RedWolf 06:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any black and white answer; as far as I know it comes down to notablility. For example, there is an article about The Beatles bootlegs, because the topic is notable, but the only bootlegs that have articles are those which were later officially released, and these pages are shared with the respective official release. Presumably, those that weren't officially released aren't considered notable enough. --Qirex 07:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixtapes 

message: Is this WikiProject ever going to complete its collaboration on The Beatles Revolver? --Hollow Wilerding 14:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. It's been the current collaboration for over a year now. --Jiy (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current collaborations 

message: The image in this template used to be a black vinyl looking thing, and a little while ago it was changed to a CD with a little musical note, and now it has been reverted back. There has been next-to-no discussion on this. If anyone is interested, please go to Template talk:Album-stub and add your thoughts. --Qirex 02:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A perennial debate is afoot at the Village Pump (Policy and Technical versions) about whether or not to eliminate images from stub templates. From the perspective of this particular template, do you believe that the image associated with it is dispensible; in other words, do you believe that eliminating the image would negatively impact the message of or delivery of that message by the stub template? Thanks for your opionions. --Courtland 13:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I must have missed this a while ago. It's probably too late now, but my opinion on the inclusion of images in stubs is that none of them are, strictly speaking, necessary, but generally they look pretty. So, perhaps better to eliminate, if this is required for technical reasons. But, if this is done, I do think that it should be uniform among all stubs. --Qirex 13:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album stub template 

message: I've noticed a few cases where the background color of a tribute album has been changed in various articles, presumably due to someone uniformed of the Albums project not liking the color. Personally, I don't like the admittedly effeminate purple color, which I believe is the reason I've seen people change it. If consensus is there, could we change it from plum to something a bit more decent (List of colors), for example lemon (#FDE910), saffron (#F4C430) or vermillion (#FF4D00)? Those seem to be different enough from the other album-type colors. --Liontamer 18:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't mind purple. I'm not sure about tan, as I think I'd prefer to use a more "colourful" colour. How about pear or lime or corn? What are other people's thoughts? --Qirex 03:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think corn might be nice, but I don't have any strong feelings about any of them, including the current purple. Perhaps the purple is problematic; it seems to be rendering as lavender for Liontamer... --Jkelly 04:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribute album background color? 

message: I just thought that having a standard convention for naming cover art files for albums would be a REALLY good idea, since it would allow people to find the cover art files without first finding the specific album name. Maybe we could use a bot or something to correct the current files also? 
Thanks, Alex 10:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unified naming for cover art files

message: This has probably been answered before, but I couldn't find it. 
Is there a standard for which comes first in album track lists, song title or artist?
I've seen some people completely rotating tracklists from Song - Artist to Artist - Song. Obviously the Artists are much more likely to be linked than the songs - does this matter?
Gram 11:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "'Song' - Artist (Songwriter1/Songwriter2)" is standard. --FuriousFreddy 18:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Track lists for 'various artists' albums

message: As you might have noticed, this template was recently protected, because it appeared in a list of high-risk templates at WP:HRT. As of 5 November, the template is used on 6559 pages. Although being used exclusively on talk pages makes it less expensive than some other templates, I would encourage you to reduce the frequency of edits to the page by linking to the to-do list rather than including it in the template. --bainer (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Album 

message: I'm afraid to say that The Beatles and their number-one album for Revolver has spent enough time yielding the "current collaboration" standing. More than one year is plenty, and seeing how it has been even longer than that, a change is required. A fresh album article with little work completed is in desperate need of enhancing. Okay, perhaps not desperate. Does this proposal sound fair? I do believe so. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See also: I have placed this message on the Featured Albums Project page as well.
—Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The Gwen Stefani album Love. Angel. Music. Baby.—a mainstream album for once—has become the new current collaboration. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prepared to change "current collaboration" standing

message: I have noticed that Revolver (The Beatles, 1966 release) has been the featured album project for quite some time now. This would please me if the article had been enhancing — however, this does not appear to be the case. Judging by the number of edits that have been made in the history, it seems as though a collaboration on the article had never really commenced. The current five-hundredth edit was edited on the date of August 22 2002; had a collaboration been occurring, I am almost certain that the five-hundredth edit would not have taken place three and a half years ago. My proposal is simple: change the standards of the featured album project. The inactivity taking place in the article—also evident by the past fifty edits that were made (the fiftieth being made on September 20 2005)—has left a dead branch for other album articles that could have been significantly improved within that time period. It disappoints me so. The album project must be changed or even removed from Wikipedia if its inactivity is as great as it currently stands.
:See also: I have placed this message on the Featured Albums Project page as well.
—Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gwen Stefani album Love. Angel. Music. Baby.—a mainstream album for once—has become the new current collaboration. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue with inactivity of the featured album project

message: I found that there are two seperate articles - Cover art and Album cover.
Which one should be used as standard for the sleeve artist (if listed) in the Personnel section?
In the Means of Production article, I linked the musician's credits as follows:
: Aim - Arranger, Producer, Sleeve Art, Scratching
But on other articles I have seen links to Album cover instead. In addition, the article Album cover art is a redirect to Album cover, not Cover art...
Gram 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personnel: Cover artists

message: Can there be a Christmas album background color, such as red or green, since Christmas albums usually are only played at Christmas anyway? 
Tunes 19:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas album background color 

message: It is rather ironic since I'm the one who made most of the stars in the album articles, but shouldn't we be using text instead of the images? Most of us thought it was a great idea when we first implemented it, but now that we think about it, although it may serve some visual purposes:
*For some people, it's hard to distinguish between 1 and .5 stars (eye, monitor, etc.)
*Without the captions, it's virtually unreadable for visually impaired.
*Image bandwidth. It's much faster and uses less bandwidth without the unnecessary stars.
*Generally, it's easier without them.
Yeah, consider this carefully. I realize it looks good on some articles, but it doesn't really have a good purpose... -- WB 06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the usage of stars does have several problems, the biggest problem is for me is that the alt-text is usually left out leaving visually impaired a problem. I suggest that WP:Albums discourages the usage of stars. Nooby god 16:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should run a replacement script. I'm currently replacing all the stars with text on the articles I'm editting, but without a bot, it would be pretty hard. We need some concensus before running it though. -- WB 22:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, mainly because not all reviews use the convenient 5 star scale. There isn't a reason why All Music ratings deserve to be represented visually but not, say, Pitchfork ratings (which use a 10 point decimal scale), other than the fact that images for them happen to be more feasible. The resurrected  template is capable of using different scales, but there are problems with it: (1) it relies on CSS hacks (2) even if we are able to create a 10 star scale, for example, it would be way too large (3) the syntax is complicated. Overall, the stars images create an unneeded complication and issues of consistency.—jiy (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could get away with all of these problems if we used text instead of images. -- WB 00:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, if we used (X/Y) or something simmilar all of the problems can be avoided, and with the bonus of using less bandwith. Nooby god 02:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So how do we get started on this replacement plan? Is there a bot running free? -- WB 05:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest, we first ask everyone else if they agree with this plan because wikipedia is ruled by a Consensus, and if everyone agrees we can put a  Request for a bot. What do you think? Nooby_god | Talk 00:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Where should we ask? This place is so quiet. -- WB 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea on where to ask, but we could always run the bot and put in the edit summary 'see WP:ALBUMS/Reason_for_no_stars' or something like that. Nooby_god | Talk 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be a good idea to start without a concensus? There are some very very star loving users here in Wikipedia. -- WB 01:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I think the stars are nice (only 5 star scale, I don't know of any source that uses stars for a scale of 10). But since most people prefer text, I don't mind. There should be a Template for deletion vote before making changes, I think that's the proper process. Gflores Talk 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a bot replacing the shortly active template with the text. My concern here is the ones with the raw image link. -- WB 03:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've messaged User:NetBot and has accepted the request to convert the stars to text. Gflores Talk 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've set User:Tawkerbot to convert, I will start as soon as I recieve approval (3 days) Tawker 02:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Tawkerbot is presently chugging away at the replacements, it's running a 30s interval so it'll be a few hours. Tawker 09:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It would've been nice if this was brought to the attention of a wider audience before starting. Especially seeing as you've been debating this for a month and have only had input from five users, it's not exactly what I would call a majority consensus. I'm adding a modified Template for Deletion tag thingy to the stars to get the issue more attention. - MightyMoose22 13:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scrap that idea, I don't know how to do it. I would suggest that someone who can do it... erm... does it, and adds a link pointing to here for discussion. - MightyMoose22 13:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stars to text 

message: I work with J-pop albums, whose titles are almost always in Japanese. These names have a romaji version, in example, Koibumi / good night (this is a single, but should work as example, and I didn't want to cross-post between WP:SONG and WP:ALBUM, and this page seems to be more active than WP:SONG). The real name for this single is 恋文 / good night. In the previous, current and next album sections of the template, when the real name is in Kanji, should it be written in romaji (Koibumi / good night), in kanji "as is" (恋文 / good night) or in both (恋文 / good night, line break, Koibumi / good night)? I have been using the romaji-only version, because I believe it is the clearer version for both those who are in touch with the subject and the casual reader, but I want to get a confirmation. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 04:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, especially since my browser isn't showing those kanji anyway.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usability question for foreign albums 

message: Question: are these considered Studio albums (and thus under the orange color) or other (and thus darksea green), or such?  Just curious, as I'm creating a couple of them that are, and I'd like to know what the consensus is.--Mitsukai 20:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just wondering: how do readers even know that the background color is significant? -- Mikeblas 21:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because someone took the time to argue about it. ^_^  Seriously, I don't know, other than for classification reasons.  The color scheme is on the project and infobox pages, but I don't think anyone really knows (or cares, TBH) what the colors are for.  I'm just trying to keep things in line with everything else.  Personally, I'd propose a color for remix albums, since they seem to be on the increase as a definitive type of album.--Mitsukai 21:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I always label them as compilations; dark sea green. --FuriousFreddy 14:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remix albums background color

message: I've noticed that the All Music Guide link in professional reviews field is italicized in many articles. Is there any reason to do so? Jogers 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, no. It's not a magazine of any kind, it's just a website. Websites shouldn't be italicized. Gflores Talk 22:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is also a book, and was released as such before the website ever existed. Still (according to the Wikipedia article, anyway), AMG is first and foremost a music database, in which case it probably shouldn't be capitalized. Thebogusman 23:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should be noted on the project's page? Seems there's a bit of confusion over this topic. Jogers 09:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever I came upon a review I went for not italicized, as it isn't italicized in its article. (And for the reason given by Gflores) --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Music Guide italicized or not? 

message: A standard format for citing liner notes has been added to the citation style guide:
Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style#Liner_notes. Kaldari 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out.  I have some updating to do.  Jkelly 20:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing liner notes 

message: Anything that should be done different for iTunes exclusive releases?  I'm editing Telescope Eyes E.P. and wondering if I should use the regular salmon for the infobox or something different. – gRegor 05:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  iTunes Exclusive Releases 

message: I noticed on several albums I had edited that the stub was changed from  to a more specific  by the Stub Sorting Project, so I went ahead and added those to the list of stubs on our project page.  The more specific the stub is the more helpful it will be, eh?  -- gRegor 18:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More specific stubs 

message: What do you think about this way of track listing formatting  ? Should it be changed to conform the project's specificaton? Jogers 13:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the table is inappropriate (see When tables are inappropriate). --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track listing formatting 

message: The WWW Music Database says it has 23,000 albums.  Allmusic says it has 874,000 albums.  Moreso, we're now gathering :Category:Demo albums and :Category:Unreleased albums.  Do all of them deserve individual articles?  --Perfecto  05:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One aspect of the issue (that many editors are unsatisfied with articles that can never grow beyond a track list and the mention of a couple of reviews), is that there is often no obvious place to merge such information. Jkelly 19:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are all albums, once verifiable, encyclopedic? 

message: Hi there. In the few album articles I've created, I've been linking the years in the chronology to Year in music. I've read WP:MOSDATE, so I understand the reasoning behind removing contextually neglible links to plain years, but in this case, linking to the year in music seems contextually relevant in the Chronology section of the infobox (it allows the reader to easily find out about the musical landscape when an album was released). I'd actually like to recommend that your project adopt it as a guideline, but I'm not much of a "joiner" so I'll leave the decision up to you all. Mike Dillon 08:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would object. There are guidelines to avoid so-called "easter egg links" (links you have to hover to find out where they really lead), and piping "Year in X" links with just a year label is strongly discouraged. See Wikipedia:Piped link.--Fritz S. (Talk) 13:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking dates in chronology 

message: Has there been any prior discussion of creating categories or pages based on the various Rolling Stone/Pitchfork/... lists that are out there? I'm thinking of Rolling Stone's Top 500 Albums, and Pitchfork's Top 100 of the 70s/80s/90s lists. As precedent, I'd point to The 100, where a part of a similar list is included. While this article only includes 15/100 people, the distinction is mentioned on many of the lower-ranked peoples' pages (e.g. Leonhard Euler#Distinctions).
I would think that a category for something like the Rolling Stone Top 500 would probably be OK, since it wouldn't include the particular ordering, just a list of the albums. The drawback would be that with dozens of lists out there, the categories for some albums would get quite cluttered. An alternative would be some kind of standardized section for "Awards", much like there's a standardized way to include pop chart performance in album articles now. Some albums seem to have done this, e.g. Loveless, but not others, e.g. OK Computer, Daydream Nation, and Remain in Light. --Dantheox 00:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pages, if they exist, are mostly in the process of being deleted due to copyright issues. However, to improve the articles on the albums, it would be helpful to develop a standard format in which an album's position on these lists can be shown. This could be a part of the album infobox, or perhaps a separate template for sales (gold/platinum), chart positions, and rankings. --Michael Snow 06:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitchfork/Rolling Stone lists 

message: What about upcoming albums, do they deserve their own article before any official confirmation? Is there any guideline? In this specific case, I am referring to the new Tool (band) release, which is untitled, with no official release date yet and so forth. As the specifics start to emerge one by one, the rumor mill goes wild. The article Aldaraia refers to the upcoming album (which already got an AfD tag Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldaraia). What do you folks think would be reasonable to do? Any suggestions are appreciated.. --Johnnyw 18:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, if there is verifiable information about an upcoming album an article might be justified. --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming albums 

message: Did a quick search and didn't see anything about this on the main page, but is there any special way to do split albums? Dysfunktion 01:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Judge by how much article you have to write, not by packaging.  Jkelly 01:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split albums 

message: I haven't really seen this addressed in the project page or in the Talk archives.  What is the best way to handle alternate track listings for international versions of an album?  I don't want to be "Americentric" and assume that the US/Canada version is the "default" track listing and everything else is just a noted mention.  On the other hand, I'm not sure I want to get into in-depth tables of track listings for the myriad international versions of some albums.  Is there a standard here? Aguerriero 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International track listings? 

message: In regards to infobox album colors, two things: 
#What's the difference between the "sea green" compilation and the "red" compilation?
#Can we mute the red a little?  It seems a bit stark.--み使い Mitsukai 02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: darkseagreen should be used for compilations. —Slicing (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors/Compilations 

message: I'm proposing a new wikiproject for articles regarding musical groups, individual musical artists, etc. If anyone has thoughts or comments on this, or if anyone can point out that I've missed an existing project for this purpose, please discuss it on my talk page. If you support the creation of this project, please add your name to the list here. The temporary pre-project page is here and is in desperate need of contributions from more experienced projecters. bmearns, KSC(talk) 20:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This project jas been officially started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians B.Mearns*, KSC 19:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Wikiproject: Musical Artists 

message: You guys were the only ones with anything on the talk page, so to give you a heads up: I moved Me First, by The Elected to Me First (Album) and set up Me First as a disambig between that page and Me First and the Gimme Gimmes. -AKMask 06:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but the naming guidelines suggest the 'a' in album should be lowercase, not uppercase. :) Gflores Talk 06:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just letting this project know

message: :Category:Albums by artist nationality seems pretty useful to me. I've just started to clean it up so the nationality subcategories contain the artist's albums categories rather than the invidual album articles. I believe this is the right way to arrange this so please correct me if I'm wrong. Jogers 12:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I hadn't noticed that category. It's looking great! I'll try to help a bit. Gflores Talk 21:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done letters X, Y, Z in :Category:Albums by artist, but I see you're creating new categories that go there, so I'll wait a bit before I continue. :) Gflores Talk 22:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help! I'm creating new subcategories of :Category:Albums by artist to get the :Category:Albums by artist nationality cleaned up. Some albums are directly in subcategories of :Category:Albums by artist nationality but there are no proper subcategories of :Category:Albums by artist for them, in which case I create them and place them in the proper subcategories of :Category:Albums by artist nationality. So, what you started to do is complementing perfectly with what I'm doing and I see no reason why you would have to wait :-) Our joint effort can make the :Category:Albums by artist nationality very useful. Perhaps, we could expand the recommendations on using categories on the Project's page? Jogers 14:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization

message: I'm working on a page for an album whose liner notes have separate writing credits for the music and the lyrics. How should this be addressed in the track listing? Say, for instance, track #1 has music by X and Y and lyrics by X and Z. Should the track be listed like this: 1. "Track 1" (X, Y, Z), or should the credits be listed after the track title in a different fashion? JJBunks 21:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually just combine them (like you suggested)... --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do about separate music and lyrics credits? 

message: What colours should be used for demo / rehearsal releases? and bootlegs? Spearhead 22:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say use darkturquoise for now (since they are usually live recordings), until the matter about the admissablity/policy of bootlegs gets resolved.--Esprit15d 18:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  colours 

message: Is there a good resource to find total times of albums? It gets sickening after a while when you have to add the time of each song. Weatherman90 19:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Freedb Spearhead 19:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! You saved my brain from exploding :)  --Weatherman90 03:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think sickening is the wrong word. "Mind-numblingly dull" is the correct one. — Fantailfan 12:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There's also MusicBrainz. --Jacj 19:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Album total times

message: Another Question - How can I find if an album received any certification, and if it did, what kind, (Platinum, Gold, 2x Platinum, etc.) Thanks!
--Weatherman90 15:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.riaa.com/gp/database/default.asp - this only works for American data, though. Flowerparty■ 16:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Weatherman90 01:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition, I have been indicating Gold, Platinum, Double Platinum, Triple Platnium, 4X Platinum, etc. - where should I start the #X? Any consensus? – Fantailfan 12:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RIAA Certification

message: I made this nifty little number, If anyone wants to use it. It will also place Category:Wikiproject Albums Member on your page. Enjoy!
	This user is a member of WikiProject Albums.
<BR><BR><BR><BR>
--Weatherman90 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice.  I can't say I'm a member, but I spend quite a bit of time here.  But that userbox looks nice.--Esprit15d 13:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone up for templating it?--み使い Mitsukai 13:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I will. --Esprit15d 18:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks like there is already Template:User WP:ALBUM - is this to replace? --Fantailfan 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject Albums Userbox!

message: There is an ongoing discussion at Template talk:Album infobox#Update about the proposed changes to the album infobox template. I thought that someone here might be interested. Jogers (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion at [[Template talk:Album infobox]] 

message: Perhaps listing them alphabetically could by recommended? Jogers (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree and usually put them in alphabetical order (I actually thought that already was a guideline)... --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I've updated the guideline and the infobox example. Jogers (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at the Q magazine website suggests that it does not host any reviews at the moment. In fact, the entire site seems very stripped-back. I'm taking the links down. –Unint 05:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some links still work however . For those which don't we can still link to the summary and rating on buy.com or metacritics. Jogers (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional reviews order in the infobox