Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 6

message: Is there a standard for adding hidden tracks to the track listing scheme? Skabat169 15:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably depends on the record. I don't know if you have a specific article in mind, but have a look through :Category:Albums with hidden tracks if you want to see some examples. Flowerparty? 16:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I think I got what I was looking for.  Basically, number it if it has a number, add a note to the track that the song is hidden on if it is such. Skabat169 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden tracks 

message: Looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Album infobox 2, there are still something in the region of 780 pages using this template, which is now just a redirect to Template:Album infobox. Not a terribly large problem, admittedly (I only noticed when someone edited infobox 2 yesterday and it broke a load of pages), but a lot of these pages still have residual 'Last cover'
and 'Next cover' parameters, which is only likely to confuse people. Do people think these should be converted, and if so is anyone willing to get a bot to fix them? Flowerparty? 16:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that last cover and next cover parameters can be confusing. Is a bot suitable to convert these infoboxes? If not I can do this using AWB. I usually convert them anyway when I spot them. Jogers (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AWB is likely the best option for this. Dan, the CowMan 17:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was thinking AWB might be a good option. Well, you're both welcome to go ahead and fix it :) Flowerparty? 22:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Jogers (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pages still using Album infobox 2

message: Lets say an album is made by a band thats (just barely) notable, in this case Stepping on the Crowtche owf Your Americain Presidaint.  Just because the band is notable, does that make their album notable?  I've left a comment on their talk page but I'm not sure what the consensus on album notability is.  Peace, --Urthogie 12:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen at least one article nominated for deletion for that reason before (can't remember what it was called), and it was kept on the grounds, "If you don't think the band are notable, nominate their article for deletion." There seems little argument against that - it would be a double standard to delete such articles. Flowerparty☀ 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oddly, it seems that anything with a track list will get an AfD-consensus to keep.  Few, if any, editors object to merging articles, though.  Often one can simply be WP:BOLD and do that.  I have suggested the merge.  Jkelly 16:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of albums 

message: Where are all these Genre categories going from albums. This bot activity is highly misguided! We might think that placing an album in an artist's category and then that category in a genre category is sufficient. However, that is only likely to be true if that artist stays within one genre. This is just not true of many, many music artists. You might say it is true of most! That is as may be, however sugnificant number it is not true of and this makes this policy of removal of genre catagories from albums most illogical and/or inconsistent. Thos point about category assignments in wikimedia is that they can by design be multi-dimensionsal, wh should make use of that facility not cripple it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone response to questions here or do people just set to changing everything without reference to others.! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like leave to a more experience wikkin.. 'specially since I don't use a bot... but... Category by artistname should put it into the "proper" genre category. The underlying assumption that artistes don't change genres should be examined. -- Fantailfan 11:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre Categories

message: Shouldn't we start a new category under this name. I think the title speaks for itself. So many people upload mixtapes (the latest ones I found were at Chamillionaire's page and on DJ Muggs) so it is the least we can do instead of tagging with whatever is at hand is that we could gather them into one subcategory so they won't be confusing any more. Lajbi 16:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started it. Tell me what you think, but note that there are way too many of them to fill the artcile enough as you can see by visiting this link :Category:Mixtape albums. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 15:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Mixtape albums 

message: WikiProject Arts 
Announcing the creation of WikiProject Arts, an effort to create a collaboration between all arts projects and artistically-minded Wikipedians in order to improve arts coverage. If you think you can help, please join us!
HAM  17:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An invitation to all members of this project

message: Why shouldn't we link years like 2003? —Akrabbim 14:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because WP:PIPE says that we should avoid easter egg links (i.e. links "that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on") and explicitly states that "year-in-x" links "should be labeled accordingly, and not with just the year." --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piped years in music 

message: I have been doing some work on a few bands' albums but have little to no luck in finding sources for them.  I know that the best source would be the CD's themselves, but since I don't have the few I own with me at this time I can't use them as a source and I don't have the money to buy them to use as a source.  Does anyone know of good websites that will give us all, or most of the information we seek for inforboxes and a basic album article?Will 20:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All Music Guide usually has the basics you need to fill out the infobox. --Fritz S. (Talk) 20:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: AMG as well as Amazon, if the band pages aren't helpful. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good sources 

message: Hi.  I seem to have run out of tweaks to make to the article, so if other editors would check out the Peer Review above and offer feedback, I would appreciate it.  Thanks in advance.  Jkelly 02:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review/This Is the Sea/archive1]] 

message: Why should the rating of an album be (4/5) rather than ? Am I the only one that thinks the stars look better? RENTAFOR LET? röck 00:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The stars are problematic. This issue was raised several times (see the most recent discussion). Jogers (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which was continued at the Village Pump, but ultimately unresolved. In a quickie vote of the half dozen or so people who cared, it was tentatively decided to keep the stars but maybe redesign them to be more easily read (possibly black instead of yellow). It's a shame none of us thought to save the section before it was deleted. MightyMoose22 15:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote to get rid of the stars if it was now. Jogers (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd keep them.  I think they give a more elegant look than simple numbers, but maybe that's just me.  In any case, I think stars simply work better.--み使い Mitsukai 16:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't using stars depend on ratings out of 5, or at least some kind of numerical rating? For the sake of uniformity, I'd prefer for ratings to be given without stars, if at all. Tim Ivorson 16:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only use the graphics for ratings out of 5; the letter grades, "honorable mention," etc.(Christgau) or decimal (!) out of 10 (Pitchfork) are silly. I don't even like +1/2 star systems (which most people use); it turns a 5 point system into a ten-point one, effectively. No stars sounds like not rated rather than unlistenable (e.g., Metal Machine Music) and 4 1/2 stars is good for those not-quite-perfect albums (e.g. Quadrophenia). I digress, however. I prefer stars (however they are presented) because ratings, for me, are like time - right now it's not 4:08 PM EDT, but "a little after 4." --Fantailfan 20:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I said last time round was that I think we should display the review results as they are displayed at the source, if it's shown (as with AMG) as  we should use stars, if it's 4/5 (or 8.3, or B+) as text we should use text, et cetera. I disagree with regardlessly converting all reviews to text as much as I would with converting them all to stars. MightyMoose22 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My position hasn't changed. Selectively representing some graphically and some textually is pointless. Having them all as text is the easiest and most uniform.—jiy (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've used the PNGs constantly, up to the point where I started to consider visual accessibility. Were there ever specific concerns about that? (Or just having all the information in the article presentable in text form, I suppose.) –Unint 02:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was and is one of the main concerns, AFAIK. As far as inserting PNGs manually, blind users probably won't know the rating unless alt text is included with each star image, which complicates an already complicated syntax. The current template :Template:Stars (automated method) seems to improve accessibility somewhat.—jiy (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't quite agree with the argument that the review ratings should be displayed as they are displayed at the source. Does it mean that the "mics" should be used instead of stars or plain text to display the The Source (magazine) ratings? Jogers (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I think so. Last time I mentioned the use of hypothetical thumbs up/down icons and I still think we should respect the wishes of the magazine staff and use their system, even if they want to rate an album out of seventeen cucumbers. Sure it might be a bit awkward right now, but as soon as we have a system in place (with templates, a directory/gallery for ease finding the pictures & a detailed section on this page) I believe it can work effectively. MightyMoose22 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagine 10 links to reviews, each with its own rating system. It would horribly clutter the reviews section IMO. Jogers (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, but they also provide a quickly recognised focal point - i.e. if you want to know the Source rating, you know to just look for the mics and you've found it, otherwise you'd be searching for a text needle in the middle of a text haystack. Just glance back up at this converstion, you can't deny that the stars (and the strawberry) stand out, at least more than where people have written text ratings. Plus, about half of the ratings would be/are text based anyway, so the stars (or whatever) would/do break it up a bit. MightyMoose22 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at My Private Nation by Train and you get a good idea at how POV RS reviews are in the first place. At least AMG is consistent within the band/musician's career. --Fantailfan 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:KISS should be a guideline here. I like stars, but that's a personal preference. If it doesn't use stars, I use a numerical rating. The non-rated RS reviews, which you can read and judge (favorable/unfavorable) involve original research IMEHO. There is the template:stars which is marginally more readable, but as Jogers might say, isn't for the low-visioned, but I like it anyway. --Fantailfan 13:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good ponit about RS, and they're also potentially POV. If a review mentions that half an album is good and the other half is bad, it's up to us to decide whether to class it as a favourable review or not. MightyMoose22 15:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the review says it's half bad, half good, it should be labeled "mixed". That's what the WP page says and I don't think there's too much risk of OR or POV in summarizing reviews that way. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if it's 50/50, but what about 60/40, 70/30 or 80/20. It's up to the reader to decide when it stops being "mixed" and starts leaning one way or the other. MightyMoose22 01:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Warning: Heavy POV ahead Assuming the reviewer isn't (say) Christgau with his bias against unoriginality (however well-executed). Look, that's always the problem and while Christgau can get away with it (he is one person's POV) the reviews in AMG, Pitchfork and Stylus (which are the ones I use in my contris) are, to some degree, anonymous. Argh. I wish music reviews weren't, like so much of pop culture in the past twenty years, so self-referential (until I actually listened to Velvet Underground in 1987 I was unaware of their influence, relegating the talented (Bowie) and talentless (any number of off-key "artists") to the same level). end of rant --Fantailfan 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Good work. I wonder if we ever reach consensus on this. Jogers (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. From the looks of things, it seems doubtful, but at least we now have a direction in which to point people the next time the subject arises. MightyMoose22 12:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. Thanks for your effort. Jogers (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: To add my belated comment I've currently got a poor internet connection and the wretched things often don't load - leaving me to discover the rating by the image name. It doesn't add a great deal when they load - but when they don't it is a real pain.. Secretlondon 03:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stars

message: Many album articles link to Rate Your Music in professional reviews section. I'm pretty sure that these links shouldn't be there so if there were a strong consensus on this I would be pleased to remove them with AWB. Jogers (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go ahead. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if we ignored the fact that these aren't professional reviews, aren't these ratings a "moving target" anyway?  Don't these ratings change as more and more people rate them?  If so, there's no reason to even try to have these.  I say tell 'em bye.  UnhandledException 02:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed all of them for now. Nobody complained so far. Jogers (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rate Your Music links

message: I believe that using amazon.com or amazon.co.uk as a review source is a moving target and commercial bias that we should avoid. What d'y'all'think? <Fantailfan 14:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on which ones you mean. The costumer reviews (with the five-point ranking) are not professional reviews and should be avoided (see Rate Your Music links above). However, I think the Editorial Reviews from Amazon are okay. --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazon.com links 

message: Anyone looked at Cat:Albums by number lately? There are now categories for up to the fourteenth album released by an artist. (A couple of months ago, there were only Cat:Debut albums, Cat:Second albums, and Cat:Final albums.)
Anyone think this is worthwhile? (I doubt it, just given the ambiguity of some people's release histories; not to mention the question of what we gain from this...) –Unint 01:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: just nonsense. Put them up for CFD, if you like Spearhead 08:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that these categories are useful. Jogers (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I dislike the proliferation of categories in general, articles which have too many categories, and especially categories which seem to serve no useful purpose. -Freekee 14:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracking albums by number? 

message: I was wondering if it wouldn't be better to create a forking project to put all the stubby articles that will never have encyclopaedic importance on WP, if not, then trying to created articles that already give more information that listing the tracks on the album which is what I normally see on album pages... see Dalida's albums for example. It would be nicer to have information on the album than to only know the tracks (which can be retrived on other websites easily). Lincher 20:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubby articles 

message: Can someone have a look at Exactshit and tell what colour it is meant to be?  It is a bootleg CD, released by Hexstatic.  --Midnighttonight 10:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a life recording, you can use darkturquoise for now but setting up a seperate color for bootlegs may be a good idea... Jogers (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's released by the artist, it's not a bootleg recording. If tracks were unauthorised recordings, which the band took and released, if would be an "official bootleg," which would simply be considered a live record. I'd expect entries on actual bootlegs to be very rare. -Freekee 03:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: released by the artist under a pseudoym?  It sounds like a studio recording. --Midnighttonight 22:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  album colour thingy and [[Exactshit]] 

message: I have seen some albums on All Music Guide where a rating is given (X out of 5 stars) but no actual review is there. Should this be dealt with the same as any other review, or should it be dealt with differently? Joltman 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remove such links from album infobox when I spot them. Jogers (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating but no review? 

message: When a single is mentioned, as in a cd-single or a 7", where the name is a song nameis the title supposed to be italicized or surrounded by quotes? Off the top of my head, Dropkick Murphys released a single for the song "Walk Away". So, if the single is mentioned, is it Walk Away single or "Walk Away" single? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joltman (talk • contribs) .
*I prefer "Walk Away," as my mind automatically associates the itals with albums.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with Jogers. While it isn't stated in any guidelines, using quotation marks for singles is how it is done on pretty much every article. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go along with that, even though "because everybody else does it" is a poor reason to. I mean, I don't see how a 40 minutes single with seven songs is any different than a 45 minute LP with five songs. -Freekee 15:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Albums are italicized and songs are in quotes (i.e. The Beatles' song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" comes from their 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band). Operas, symphonies and other pieces of classical music are also italicized.
It probably wouldn't hurt to have the formatting issues either repeated on the Songs and Albums pages, or linked prominently to the guidelines at Wikiproject Music.  — Catherine\talk 01:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A single with the same name as a song, italicize or quotes? 

message: One of the albums I have worked on recently got flagged with an importance template stating that the importance of the article needs to be justified.  Granted, there is nothing particularly groundbreaking about this album other than it is the last one released before the band's fame went nationwide, but that would be true of many albums in the albums project.  I am working on some significant research, scouring old sites on archive.org for information that has been all but lost with time regarding this band, and I hope to be able to contribute more information as I have time to devote to this.  I have printouts of pages 2-inches thick that I have been going through and highlighting on flights or any other place I have mind-numbing time to kill.  The thing that got me involved in the albums project to begin with, is I felt that there was merit to having a non-commercial repository of albums.  That way if I referred somebody to a particular album for some reason, I'd send them here rather than Amazon or some party with a corporate interest in the link.  How should this flag be handled?  The article in question is Kids on the Street.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UnhandledException (talk • contribs) . 18:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kids on the Street article looks fine to me. It's a studio album by a notable band and this makes it significant enough, in my opinion. I would just remove the tag and notify Backburner001. Jogers (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance? 

message: When I was cleaning up CVA (album), it had terms in a song linked, which is something I've seen done in other articles. For example, a song called "Atticus Finch" was linked to the Atticus Finch article even though the article doesn't mention the song. Also, a song called "Less Deicide, More Minor Threat..." had Deicide and Minor Threat linked in the song name. Am I correct that links like this should be kept out of the song title, and, as I did in said article, put a link under 'See also' if it seems relevent? Joltman 13:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I link it when the reference is necessary for understanding the title. To point out the obvious, most popular songs' titles are either taken from the lyrics or (especially in the case of instrumentals) seemingly arbitrary, so I like adding a little 'flavor' when the source isn't obvious. But then I am not an administrator, just a contributer. --Fantailfan 14:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my thing is, as my example above, if you see "Atticus Finch" aren't you going to assume that it's a link about the song? If I saw "Less Deicide, More Minor Threat..." I think it's a little more obvious, but to me it still seems out of place, so that's why I was asking here. Joltman 15:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you on this one.  Individual terms for context like the Minor Threat one?  Yes.  If it's something like Atticus Finch, I might make a note of it in the description or a parenthetical in the tracklisting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like to vary the linespacing of the track listing... but you got me thinking about it, so I think I will change the ones I've done so that it's in the body of the article rather than a paranthetical. --Fantailfan 16:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, I was thinking along the lines of, say, "4. "Clint Eastwood" (references Hollywood actor Clint Eastwood)" rather than a new line item.  I prefer adding it to the body because a) most album articles are short, and can use the expansion, and b) it looks cleaner. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest that this sort of context-linking is a lot less likely to lead to surprised readers if it is done in article text.  Jkelly 16:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song with a term in it - link it? 

message: is there any chance the infobox templates can be altered to incorporate an optional "publishing label(s)" line?  Otherwise we're left with what we've got at Arctic Monkeys... which I suppose isn't too bad but a new infobox parameter would be easier.   DJR  (Talk) 16:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the infobox is all that awkward, but that article has serious Wikipedia:Fair use issues.  Jkelly 16:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, JK, you had me confused... the article has serious WP:FU issues, not the multiple issuing/imprint thing... Hostess has a record label in Japan? And I thought they just did Twinkies. You also have indie label releases re-released by a major, reissues done after the most recent spate of M&A's, plus the Rhino-WEA connection. I think "additional label" parameters would be good. --Fantailfan 16:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: See WP:FUC numbers three and ten.  There's no indication that the images tagged as "promotional" are from a press kit, or who the copyright holder really is, and all but one unfree image could be removed without losing anything encyclopedic from the article.  I'm not about to go delete them or anything, but you might want to think about fixing that up.  Jkelly 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  labels vs. publishing labels 

message: Where exactly are these fair use issues?  Everything used has correct licensing information, sourced and used in context... where's the problem?   DJR  (Talk) 16:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:FUC numbers three and ten.  There's no indication that the images tagged as "promotional" are from a press kit, or who the copyright holder really is, and all but one unfree image could be removed without losing anything encyclopedic from the article.  I'm not about to go delete them or anything, but you might want to think about fixing that up.  Jkelly 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use at [[Arctic Monkeys]] 

message: I found that a user just did that, but it seems to be quite unnecessary for me... — Zee 00:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not, so long as it's just a simple, basic entry. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 03:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would also agree that seems fair, the page will be created anyway why not start it early. - Patman2648 06:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is referenced, then I don't see why not.  DJR (Talk) 09:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The key point here is "will be created anyway". People always jump the gun on these, even if the title hasn't been announced yet — see the sorts of tools created just for this purpose. –Unint 14:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. Thanks. Zee 03:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are 'to be announced' albums put in discographies? 

message: I've had a look around the WikiProjects and this seems like the best place to ask, as they're kind of like visual albums. How should music videos (as in video tapes, not promotional clips) be handled? Many bands have released many videos over the years, whether they be live concert footage or "greatest hits" type promo vid compilations, especially since the invention of the DVD. I think they should have their own infobox colour and be mentioned on this page. As it stands, the majority of ones I've seen whilst researching this train of thought don't have an infobox at all, with the exception of those included as part of a CD/DVD package such as Animals Should Not Try to Act Like People, which are labelled as if 'twere only a CD. Any thoughts? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 03:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always use ; we could certainly stand to get more mileage out of it. (Actually, that makes it invalid for VHS and all those other formats. That's a problem.) –Unint 14:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not using the standard  template with the "type" field specified as "video album" or something? A separate color of the infobox may also be a good idea. The other problem is what color should be used in such split releases like Animals Should Not Try to Act Like People or Magical Mystery Tour. Jogers (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of using the Album box, I just wondered what the colours should be. I guess we could just use the standard "live" and "compilation" colours, but maybe it'll be an idea to give them their own. As for split releases, there are three kinds from what I can tell. There's the CD/DVD packages like Animals..., those released completely seperately (and therefore have seperate articles) like Magical Mystery Tour (album) (film), and those that are just different versions of the same thing, like Royal Albert Hall London May 2-3-5-6 2005. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 18:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Music videos

message: Are ordinals (1st, 2nd, 3rd, ...) in album chronologies in the infobox encouraged, allowed, discouraged or disallowed? See for example X&Y. --PEJL 20:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen this anywhere else. I don't think this is necessary. Jogers (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordinals in chronologies

message: I listed the "find and replace" settings I use with AutoWikiBrowser at User:Jogers/AWB and wrote short descriptions of what I intended them to do. I've already applied some of these changes to few articles about albums. I'd like to go through all the articles using the  eventually so if you have any idea how these settings could be improved please let me know. Jogers (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AWB edits