Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:When the Pawn...#Requested move 11 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 (talk)  22:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:When the Pawn...#Requested move 11 April 2024]] 

message: There is a discussion at Talk:Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran that needs opinions regarding an edit war based on the singles in the infobox for the article. The discussion can be found at the article's talk page here. Thanks. HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute at [[Talk:Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran]] 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:And Here She Is ... Ann-Margret#Requested move 7 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:And Here She Is ... Ann-Margret#Requested move 7 May 2024]] 

message: I've noticed that the subcategories of :Category:Albums by recording location are inconsistently labeled as s, e.g. :Category:Live albums recorded in Australia and :Category:Live albums recorded in Sydney both are while :Category:Live albums recorded in Argentina and :Category:Live albums recorded in Buenos Aires are not. Is there a reason for this discrepancy? Should they remain as such? Personally, I think album articles are already noticeably limited in the number of available categories they can be placed in compared to most other article types (most of the album articles I've created have 3-7), and it doesn't appear like it would hurt to open those up. I've been thinking recently about what additional album categories could be created because of this, and I think this could be a good place to start. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: An album recorded in a certain city is not defining and should be a container but at a certain venue or studio is defining and should contain articles directly. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think the cats I mentioned that aren't labeled should be? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 100%. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree with Koavf on how the categorization is currently applied. However, I always found it odd that :Category:Albums recorded at Abbey Road Studios was deleted at CfD as what could be considered one of the more defining studios at which an album could be recorded, yet the larger scheme continues. For example, I don't think an album being recorded at Capitol Studios or A&M Studios (or other corporate studio locations) are at all defining to the albums that were recorded there. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that one I don't get either. I almost recreated it the other day but after seeing the discussions I changed my mind, but I would not be opposed to it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albums by recording location container cats 

message: So now that we have taken out the "importance" parameter (which I agree with) from this table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Statistics, does anyone know if there is any way of modifying the table so that we only see the quality assessment in a single column, similar to that at WP:SONGS? It would be a lot better as the current table is a mess with all the red links. Richard3120 (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is done by a bot and when we decided years ago to remove the importance feature, I made a request to change the bot's output and no one answered. :/ So as of now I think we're stuck. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  and everyone else – I had a word, and I think we're sorted now. :-) Richard3120 (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: <3 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles assessment table 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Who Killed...... The Zutons?#Requested move 8 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  ASUKITE 20:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Who Killed...... The Zutons?#Requested move 8 May 2024]] 

message: Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article reassessment for [[Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One]] 

message: Is the recently top 100 albums from Apple Music allowed to be referenced in the pages of albums that made the list? Cahlin29 (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna say no in so far as we don't consider Apple Music a reliable publication, but I know others which we do consider reliable have covered at least part of the list so those may be okay. Given how much of the list consists of all-time popular/acclaimed albums though, I'm not sure there's much point in including it since those articles probably already have a dozen other lists each saying the same thing. It's a drop in the bucket. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, that's fair, thanks for taking the time to respond. Cahlin29 (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting list though, I can imagine that it's caused a lot of debate seeing how it's left out so many of the acknowledged "classics". As a Brit, I find the inclusion of Sade in this list and the Rolling Stone 500 albums fascinating... the Americans seem to love her, but in her native UK her albums have been all but forgotten since the 1990s. Richard3120 (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I see now that an editor has started adding the list to those albums anyway... Richard3120 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the amount of attention the list has gotten, that does not surprise me in the slightest. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple Music's list 

message: So the article on Patrick Moraz's first solo album is located at The Story of I, but for those of you who don't know, "The Story of I" is not the actual title of the album. In fact, while it is unquestionably the album's WP:COMMONNAME, the phrase "The Story of I" doesn't appear anywhere on the album or its original packaging, so I can only guess how anyone came up with it. The reason why people don't use the real title is more obvious: it's an unpronounceable symbol which doesn't appear on any conventional keyboard.
While the article's name is fine as it is (again, WP:COMMONNAME), it seems like the real title of the album should at least be mentioned in the article, but though I've seen articles use such non-standard symbols, I don't know how one goes about adding them. Can anyone help me here? (Also, if by chance someone has handy sourced info about how and why "The Story of I" became the generally understood title for the album, that would be terrific.) Martin IIIa (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I know loosely if what you're talking about, but I'm afraid I don't know how to do it with a keyboard either. Is it used anywhere online in reviews or discogs text or anything?  Sometimes even if you can't type it, you can copy/paste it (depending on what it is.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The only site I've ever run across which uses the symbol does so through an embedded image. Is there a way to add an image to a Wikipedia article such that it appears as part of the prose (rather than breaking up the paragraph the way a normal thumbnail image would)? Martin IIIa (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty much a Love Symbol case. :File:Prince logo.svg was determined to be exclusively used on Prince (musician)'s page as at some point he used it as an alternative name. His biography's running text has an example on how the image can be used as part of the prose. Keep in mind that this logo is likely to be copyrighted (despite its simplicity) and that The Story of I has too many copyrighted files already. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'd been planning to remove the images of the inner gatefold and inner sleeve anyway since they don't seem to serve any function in the article; would that help with the copyright issue? It does seem like adding the album's title couldn't make the copyright issue any worse, since a rendering of it already appears in the images of the inner sleeve and front cover. Martin IIIa (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I already marked them for deletion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album title that can't be typed 

message: I wanted to write stuff on a re-recorded album on my favourite band Coldrain who have just released a re-recorded Final Destination for its fifteenth anniversary. I wasn't sure if I was meant to add it to the original article or make it its article, per what's been done with Taylor Swift's re-releases. But I figured that was down to because there was so much information available on those re-recordings or whatnot. What is the general consensus for bands who do re-recordings of their albums? Make it their own article or just add it to the original article? A bit puzzled on what to do, and I can't find any information on this either so figured this is what I should have done by asking this question here, so sorry if it's not in the appropriate place. I would greatly appreciate a response, thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The current article is pretty much a stub with a tracklist, so I'd just add it there. There's no need for a separate article when the current one is so bare bones. Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: To add on to that, re-recorded albums (1989 (Taylor's Version), Red (Taylor's Version)) and reissue albums (The Fame Monster and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded) are only notable in their own rites if they have significant enough coverage. As Sergecross said, the Coldrain album is basically a stub/start class article so you can just add the re-recording to the same page. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-recorded albums

message: Would Album of the Year (AOTY) be reliable as a critic aggregator? The website clearly separates professional critic reviews from user reviews. — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before and was agreed to not be good as a direct source, since they have no editorial standards. It is very useful for finding reliable sources to add here (note that not all sources they use are considered reliable) and should be added to :d:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

text: It's already listed on WP:NOTRSMUSIC, along with a link to the discussion that got it listed there. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album of the Year 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Too Many Humans.....#Requested move 17 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Too Many Humans.....#Requested move 17 May 2024]] 

message: Is this source acceptable as a WP:RS for album reviews? Here's a recent example. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaning no. One of the best ways to tell the reliability of a publication is by seeing that their writers also feature in other reliable pubs, thus establishing them as subject-matter experts. In this case, I could find that, per this site's author bios, Gavin McNamara has written for the Big Issue and Metal Hammer and editor Jon Wilks (bio) has written for a handful of reliables. Past that, I didn't see anything of the sort. It may help that Wilks is himself (maybe) notable enough for his own article, at least for his music career, but its hitting at a bare minimum level that is too close for comfort for me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Perhaps best to have a discussion Talk:Ship to Shore (Richard Thompson album)? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but I think it's an issue that pertains to the entire project. This seems to be a relatively new trend (albeit a rarely used one): editors wanting to mention many ratings in prose rather than starting with a ratings template. I don't think it's a helpful choice, but my guess is that it isn't wrong for, in this case, Justin, to decline to use one, just as it isn't against policy for another editor to decide eventually to shift up to 10 ratings to an added template. Caro7200 (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm sure it's a good idea to discuss that. Somewhere I just wanted a discussion and consensus view on Tradfolk. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: @Caro7200 this page is a good venue for this discussion, but it's off-topic regarding the query Martin came in with and should've been given its own section, which you could always do now and just link back here for context. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tradfolk 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Il Mare Calmo della Sera#Requested move 27 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Il Mare Calmo della Sera#Requested move 27 May 2024]] 

message: To address issues with this article's length, I have opened a discussion at Talk:Illmatic#Split proposal that may be of interest to this WikiProject. — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Illmatic]]'' 

message: As, uh, mentioned only slightly above this thread:
What's the best practice for an article like Ship to Shore? All the ratings are shoved in the prose, instead of using the ratings template, which seems like the worst of all options as it leads to a clunky and ugly section (in my opinion). I think the template is useful, but I've also declined to add it a few times, and just didn't mention ratings at all. Is this regarded as a personal, status quo editorial choice? Does the community have a policy if an editor chooses to add a template (I don't plan on it, but it seems inevitable)? Cheers to Justin and Martin (and the great Richard Thompson), just thought it was best to start here...
I think it's an issue that pertains to the entire project. This seems to be a relatively new trend (albeit a rarely used one): editors wanting to mention many ratings in prose rather than starting with a ratings template. I don't think it's a helpful choice, but my guess is that it isn't wrong for, in this case, Justin, to decline to use one, just as it isn't against policy for another editor to decide eventually to shift up to 10 ratings to an added template. Caro7200 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that listing scores in prose is discouraged, but I can't seem to find any mentions of it right now. That's certainly how the vast majority of featured articles about albums is written, and FAs are our best articles and examples of how articles should be written. The use of the template is not a requirement, though. As for this specific article, personally, I wouldn't put the template in the current version. On my 1080p screen the infobox already pushed the quote box into track listing section. And I agree with you that in general it's a bad choice and score-filled prose looks clunky. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 16:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: As AstonishingTunesAdmirer said, it's not a requirement (and I doubt we could justifiably make it one), but personally I do find it overcrowds the prose and can make the section difficult to read with all the ratings included there. The express purpose of this template is to reduce this kind of crowding by placing the information in a convenient, off-to-the-side place, and I much prefer having it that way. I don't really see the point in not using it. I'm also not sure I know many editors who don't; I know Koavf never does (a comment as to why would be appreciated and valuable to this discussion), but he's the only one I know of who consistently does so. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to add it, but now I much prefer a  that I think is much more interesting and gives useful context instead of  which discourages reading the reception section. See To All Trains, for instance, where I think that the quote box there is fun and elucidates something about the album release. And if you add both a quote-box and music ratings, it generally pushes these divs way down into the body of the article. It's just not necessary and generally encourages the wrong kind of behavior, which is not really reading the article. If you really want to know how many stars [outlet] gave an album, I always put what the ratings are in the body of the text, so someone can press Ctrl+f and find that specific score. Does that make any sense?  ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes perfect sense to me and is pretty much exactly what I was expecting you to say. Personally, I find the quote-box being that small and pushed off to the side discourages me from reading, and would rather something like that be included in its own section, but I get what you mean. Definitely can't have both. I do still think the overcrowding of prose is an issue though. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also worth noting that the quote boxes on Ship to Shore and To All Trains both have fonts at 85% of normal size, just barely at the lower limit allowed by SMALL. I don't know how strict that line is, but scraping that close to it seems like something that perhaps shouldn't be encouraged. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, I hate sub-100% text in principle and usually cannot read it. I agree that it sucks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: As I hope would be clear to others (but isn't always because I am sometimes not so collaborative), please do amend the boxes as they meet best practice or make more sense to you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your kind words, Caro and your helpful edits: I have seen you correct errors and generally improve articles that I have written, so I am grateful. I have given my reasoning below, but to be clear, I don't object to adding  nor do I have any ownership over any articles that I write, so if someone such as yourself thinks it's a really good idea to add it, then I wouldn't stand in the way. I'm just not motivated to add it myself. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, likewise, appreciate the explanation. I believe in editorial freedom; the constant struggle for everyone is aligning that with broad acceptance, best practice, policy conventions, blah blah. And maybe part of the problem for new articles--unless you're Beyonce, Taylor, or the Stones--is that most of the initial info is in regard to critical reception, personnel, chart positions. There's not as much about backstory, inspiration, composition, recording, etc., so that many tend to be lopsided, creating weird spacing issues for weeks or months sometimes. Back in the day, Chicago media, at least, would have run general features on Shellac or Albini, RIP (and he was a producer, although I always admired the coyness...). Tours would have started, so there would have also been live reviews. Critical reception bloat may be inevitable--although Cowboy Carter's is pretty compact, given the size of the entire article. I do think some production grains can be sifted from professional reviews, which is worth doing when starting or expanding an article. Maybe British media will soon publish a few general album rollout features on Thompson... Caro7200 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I wish there were more I could write on recording, release, and promotion, but on 90%+ of articles, there just won't be. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I think rating scores in prose is improper. It's best to leave the scores themselves to be visually viewed, then reviews laid out in prose. Although like others have said, there is no rule saying you can't, but personal preference I'd want ratings scores in templates not prose. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ratings template v. use in prose 

message: I have added several dozen (hundreds?) of sources to album articles where the critical reception puts it on best of lists. E.g. see the tables at The Greater Wings. I added a number of these today and  removed one as "fluff". If other users think these are inappropriate, I'm not going to keep on adding hundreds to just be removed and waste my time. Do others agree that this shouldn't be added? If others agree with me, then someone please undo this removal. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can’t you undo it yourself? Are you trying to get people to proxy for you? Ariaslaga (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am under an editing restriction and cannot undo anyone's edits. I am asking the community to see the consensus around this because I don't want to have my work undone hundreds of times over. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. What is the editing restriction for, if you don’t mind my asking? Ariaslaga (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't at all: it's public knowledge. I have engaged in edit-warring, which is inappropriate. Hence, I am seeking to abide by the dispute resolution process, which includes getting a third party to comment, including via WikiProjects. If I am doing something inappropriate now, please let me know. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously? Dude, stand up for yourself. It sounds like whoever put that restriction on you was trying to make you humiliate yourself going forward as some kind of a power play. Don’t let them have that. I’ll revert myself on your behalf, it’s not that big of a deal to me. Just please don’t be a beta, you’re better than that. Everyone is better than that. Ariaslaga (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's nothing like that: my behavior was wrong and the community was valid to sanction me. I appreciate your time and encouragement. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

text: With regard to the tables, I believe there is a consensus that there should be a maximum of 10 rows in accordance with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Heartfox (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, in regards to the edit mentioned above, is it appropriate to keep it in the article or to remove it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best-of lists 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beastie Boys Square - discussion is stagnant and needs further input. (While it's not explicitly an album, it is tied to one, as it's related to the cover of the album Paul's Boutique.) 
Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD input requested