Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 8

message: Is there a set way to display this as i've noticed that through out wikipedia there are 2/3 different types of stars and layouts such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razorlight_%28album%29 which has two types, and there are some pages that have one or the othe, is someone willing to set a stardard on this? --Ashl 16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Ratings

message: Isn't there a specific colour scheme for this? I mean, it's not an original studio album? Might have missed it. if so, excuses. Darksteel 13:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Sometimes the info is included in the infobox, or within the text body, and/or as bonus tracks to the album. Fantailfan 19:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remastering 

message: There isn't a color for tapes, how about adding one for them? i've been annoyed severely cause i can't add tapes at the moment. Darksteel 13:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Colors are assigned to album times  types (i.e. live, studio, compilation), not to media types ("tapes", cds, dvds, etc.). Many albums have been released on more than one format. ~Gertlex 00:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Got it. Darksteel 13:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tapes 

message: Does anyone have access to Guinness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums (any edition will do I guess, the later the better)? Or The Complete Book Of The British Charts: Singles and Albums? Punctured Bicycle 01:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i've got 'British Hit Singles', 11th edition, if that's any help. W guice 20:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources 

message: Sorry to bring this up yet again...but is it really necessary to have different colours for different types of albums? I mean, the colours are totally irrelevant to any casual reader, to anyone who is not involved in this specific wikiproject. Recently someone had a creative idea to make the colour match the actual album cover. I reverted it because I am familiar with this project, but that did seem better than the completely random orange or whatever. I am reminded of the old Battles WikiProject, where we had a complex colour scheme depending on continent and whether or not the battle took place on land, at sea, or in the air. It's fun to come up with schemes like that but it is totally useless for everyone else. So basically, in short, all infoboxes should have one neutral colour, like grey. Adam Bishop 15:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw c'mon, we've got to have some fun! But seriously, although the colours are totally irrelevant to any casual reader, or to anyone who is not involved in this specific wikiproject, they are relevant to people who have figured out the code. On the other hand, having them all the same color might reduce the number of editors who are used to seeing many different colors, and think it's okay to use whatever color they think looks good. -Freekee 16:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Freekee; I appreciate the colourings because I can tell at a glance what sort of release an album/single/whatever is. However, I wouldn't mind reverting to a one-colour system as long as the same information could be found in the infobox fields. --Jacj 17:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: But Freekee, Wikipedia articles are not a code to be broken. Why should random readers have to figure it out? Adam Bishop 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't figure out why that question is relevant. I mean, you told us why you don't find the colors to be as advantageous as many people think they are, but you didn't really explain what the disadvantage to having them is. -Freekee 04:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The disadvantage is that the colours chosen are all ugly.  Who seriously uses salmon and turquoise?  That's why I reverted both attempts (one just today, another some time ago) to change the Vas (band) colours to the ones I'd added originally.  The only advantage is available only to those of you who pay attention to the project.  Only you realise it means something different.  This time, after reverting two of the articles to less hideous colouring, I visited the project page out of curiosity and saw what the point was.  I've put the colours back to your standard but I'm still having trouble seeing the point.  Why not have an infobox field which gives the same information and let a minor aesthetic choice be made for the articles, or chose something more neutral.  - BalthCat 18:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The disadvantage is that they don't mean anything to anyone, aside from the people who created them. Adam Bishop 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just calling them "ugly" alone seems subjective, but on a practical level I feel that the stronger colours often tend to clash badly with album cover designs, whereas muted colours are somewhat more in the background, allowing the album (or single) cover image to become a focal point.Ricadus 05:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, if the colors are changed, I think Wikipedia:Colours provides a good starting place for deciding which colors to use.  —TheMuuj Talk 19:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree - there's already a template for that. Fantailfan 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's light steel blue. See discussion below. We were bold. – Fantailfan 13:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox colours 

message: Bob Dylan is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy 19:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bob Dylan]]

message: Hi. I was wondering if you are aware of the bot-compiled Wikipedia 1.0 assessments at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index and if you wish to take part in this process?: WikiProject Songs are now involved and - speaking as an editor who works mostly in the field of music - this Project's absence is particularly notable. If you'd like any help getting  updated to handle this system and the assessment categories put in place drop me a line at my talk page or head on over to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. See also: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. Cheers. --kingboyk 17:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should join in. Secretlondon 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to establish basic criteria for Stub, Start and B-class articles (for hunters and gatherers like me)? Fantailfan 11:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if we create a list of what "features" are commonly present (and often missing) in most articles, we can use that to gauge an articles "quality"... For example, Infobox, track listing, and an initial summary are found in 95+% of articles, but at the same time, those articles are what we call stubs.  It's features beyond that that makes the latter quality ranks, to me. Sales rankings, track by track analysis, miscellanea, separate credit sections, strict adherence to WP:Albums format, and so on that are the additional stuff. Anyone want to take a stab at grouping those? I've gotta pack for college, so not me. o_O ~Gertlex 14:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we classify every article that has an infobox and a complete track listing (including track lengths and songwriting credits) and a credits/personnel section as Start, and everything missing any or all of those three a stub? Anything beyond that (articles with track-by-track analysis, etc.) would then be B-Class or beyond, depending on quality as described at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I could agree with that. Fantailfan 15:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I find that idea logical as well... But it does seem significant enough that it should be more widely discussed.  Particularly with the criteria for stub vs. Start, that would be something to add to WP:Albums page itself.  Classifying as Start would mean removing stub tags too, right? ~Gertlex 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider one of my own contributions (Kojak Variety, which I don't even own) to be a good Start level but the key piece is discussion of the album and track-by-track analysis, though the latter should only be necessary for Important albums. The problem is, how do you write an article about an album that is neither POV nor OR? I've been thinking about this a lot as I am trying to expand my contribution level from Hunter-Gatherer and Librarian to Scribe. (these are temperament classes I have made up on my own.) Essentialy, I want to write an article, but beyond barebones description and more Weasly words than can be boarded at Gryffindor, I do not know what to do. Fantailfan 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with the assessment that that article is a good Starter.  But at the same time, Kojak Variety's a longer album than many, and in the case of a 5 track album (such as Five Live), it has the advantage of looking more complete with the same sets of information.  Undoubtedly, some would love to argue Five Live as a stub AND Kojak Variety as a Start. ~Gertlex 23:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the definition I proposed above, yes, because Five Live lacks songwriting credits and the personnel section, while Kojak Variety has them... --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 1.0 Assessments 

message: Please note that there is a considerable amount of crud in the above category and :Category:Bootleg albums. I'll nominate a couple for deletion and tag others with various cleanup tags, but if other editors would care to examine these categories and see if anything can be improved or should be deleted it would be most welcome. (I hope you won't take exception to The Black Room (album) though, as I believe it's very well referenced for an article on an unreleased album :)). --kingboyk 12:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Unreleased albums]] 

message: The KLF discography is up as a featured list candidate, and an issue of some debate is whether it should include cover scans or not. I personally look to Kylie Minogue discography and The Beatles discography as two of the best discographies we have, and feel that using images this way is legally and morally fair use. The article would be so bare without them. I'm well aware that there is an opposing view too, which is that using images this way is overkill and not fair use at all. I'd be grateful then if interested editors would chip in at the FLC. Ultimately, if removing the images is the only way to get the article promoted I'll do it, but I think the article will lose by it. Your 2c to the FLC please (whether you agree or disagree with me). --kingboyk 12:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The KLF discography/Archive 1|Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The KLF discography]] 

message: *Why is there categories for people that have only done a few albums?  It seems a bit pointless to me.  I think there should be some sort of limit for categories (when it comes to albums at list). I understand things need to be in categories, but that doesn't mean there should be a category for each and every artist's albums. Categories with 10 or less entries should be gone in my opinion. RobJ1981 20:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even artists with only one album get an albums category. It helps with navigation and organisation. --kingboyk 20:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate on that? If someone only has two albums, what sort of organization do they need? -Freekee 00:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, some sort of limit for categories is needed.Dr. Who 01:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we running out of category space?  Jkelly 01:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: eheh, :), I guess not, (imho) it is undoubtedly true that cathegories  help with navigation and organisation, but also please note that a cathegory which has just one entry could lead the reader to confusion.Dr. Who 01:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be a little bit weird to have :Category:Albums by artist who released 10 or more albums instead of just :Category:Albums by artist which is pretty straightforward. Jogers (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I gather it's sort of like if you have a street with only one building on it, you still give that building an address.  You don't address letters to "The building on 192nd Street"--that would be kind of awkward. Nareek 04:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A simple question

message: I have been making a fair number of edits based on the Album guidelines and was wondering if we have (or should have) an edit summary like many of the projects do.  I did a quick search of the talk archives and didn't find anything.  You can see from my contributions that I've been using: "Standardizing album info – You can help!".  Thoughts?--Fisherjs 18:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea. Making some kind of to-do list would also be useful. Jogers (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Summary

message: Hey everyone. Let it be known that Pitchforkmedia has revamped the way they store their reviews on their website, leaving many of the links here on Wikipedia pointing toward absolutely nothing. So, when you come across an album page and it has a link to a pitchfork review, can you just check the link to make sure it's still viable? I'll be doing the same, and thanks in advance for your help. --King Bee 16:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitchfork Media Reviews 

message: * been working on a few hip-hop album articles recently and i was wondering if there's already a consensus on how to do producer credits as to who produced which track, which comes up a lot. i've been going:
# "Blood" – 4:26
#* Chorus: C-Rayz Walz
#* First Verse: El-P
#* Second Verse: Mr. Lif
#* Producer: El-P
a la the way we do verses. other people put "Produced by xxx". just wondering if there was a style guideline so we can make them all standardised. word W guice 17:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  producer credits (hip hop)

message: With many CD re-releases the track listings and times vary from the original vinyl - not only that but differnt CDs have different extra tracks (take Space_Ritual I know of three CD versions plus the original double vinyl - how are these treated? --C Hawke 20:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen articles with multiple track listings, each specifying it's differences from the other listings... It seems like a proper and simple enough way to manage that. Whether anything should be added to WP:Albums page, probably, but I'll wait for a concensus and more opinions. ~Gertlex 01:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: whatever we do we have to ensure that the original track listing from the first release is the one which is shown on the main listing, subsequent tracks added on re-issue can be listed, after the initial list, but as these often vary on different issues, maybe a "On subsequent issues some or all of these tracks have been added" or something similar - the only exceptions are when different countries original releases contain different tracks - Dunno how to deal with this --C Hawke 08:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Track listings and times

message: Hi. The article on The Railway Stories has been noted as being in scope for this project, and a request for an infobox has also been applied.
Q1 Does this project apply to audiobooks, or just music albums?
Q2 Is it necessary for each album to have a separate page or infobox?
Where I'm coming from is that The Railway Stories page describes ALL the audio(book) recordings of the original Railway Series books by Rev W Awdry.  So far, this amounts to a series of fifteen 7" singles (the first releases), and a related (?) series of thirteen (?) 12" albums (which were also later released on audio cassette), plus a single new CD recording.  That's an awful lot of very small pages (contrary to WikiProject:Thomas aims, which is attempting to reduce the number of small pages used), or an awful lot of album infoboxes on the same page.  Apart from the CD release, the content is purely spoken-word.
Having looked at your project page, I can't see that adding The Railway Stories would be appropriate, however I am prepared to be convinced! --EdJogg 13:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is really fun, so it should be somewhere.  I'm not sure if it fits this purview, and I'd imagine the standard would be that any interesting audiobook information (which is essentially what this is, an early audiobook) would be to include it in the article about the book.  Since this is a series, I'd think the proper merge point, if that was the route you took, would be The Railway Series, although there seems to be more than enough information here to clean it up and keep it as a regular article.  In this specific case, as they aren't really albums as much as releases of stories from the series, I'm not sure you'd excise them from here.  Then again, if the individual stories themselves have articles, maybe the information from the original 7"s can go there.  Not an easy one, haha. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for clarification, there is no suggestion that the content of The Railway Stories is going to be merged elsewhere - it is appropriate as an article in its own right.  Indeed, as part of WP:THOMAS it was moved to the main The Railway Series page for a while, but then extracted again because this was more logical, and there was so much information still to add (most of the page content has been added since then).  There is no expectation that the original books will receive individual pages either (there are 40 of them!), so the singles cannot be covered elsewhere. -- EdJogg 14:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funnily enough, I actually started that stub, and it was me who added the  template - but Ed and WPThomas have done all the work :) If I'm not mistaken, what's he really asking is "should it be in the scope of this WikiProject", which ties in with the next thread about comedy albums. Well, in my opinion yes - there's no other WikiProject covering spoken word albums and they are albums after all. Opinions are like... well everyone has them let's put it that way! So, if yours differs speak up :) --kingboyk 06:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Railway Stories audiobooks 

message: The template was just added to the talk page for the George Carlin album An Evening with Wally Londo Featuring Bill Slaszo, and I notice that the wording contains the phrase "a useful musical resource on recordings from a variety of genres" (emphasis mine).  I wonder if it might be a good idea to reword that, or come up with an altered version for non-musical albums, such as stand-up comedy and other spoken word projects. - Ugliness Man 14:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As above we need some consensus on whether these albums are within scope, but I'm firmly of the opinion that "WikiProject Albums" is just that - any and all albums. I support a wording change. --kingboyk 07:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the word "musical" from the template. See Template talk:Album#Proposed rewording. --kingboyk 12:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comedy? 

message: Okay, odd thing to bring up out of the blue, but just hours ago I noticed the Master Series compilation series and started to do some preliminary research on it. Right now it's just a mess of information I've gathered from all over the place (and a list of artists that you'd never expect to see in the same place). This is an open call for knowledgeable people (if anyone could be said to be knowledgeable about a budget series of CDs released in Europe) to look things over, fill in any glaring omissions, factcheck, etc. –Unint 05:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master Series 

message: After doing some work on Kirlian Selections (I left the POV template there) I made my way here, and was wondering, can I join? Are there any conditions I need to meet? For that matter, is there a members page that I missed? ^_^;; --Schlagwerk 04:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no members page or conditions you need to meet. You are welcome to help to create, expand, categorize and format album-related articles, as well as participating in discussions on this page. Jogers (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't there a members list? In my experience getting people to sign up, sending them a newsletter occasionally etc etc gives a sense of community and really helps the project. That's certainly been the case at WP:BEATLES. --kingboyk 08:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not create one? Jogers (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could do, but don't want to rock the boat too much :) Is there any reason why the Project doesn't have these things? --kingboyk 10:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there is any specific reason. It probably never came up. Jogers (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This list could get quite long over time. How about creating a subpage like Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Participants? Jogers (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done that and transcluded it. If it gets too big the transclusion can be changed to a link. --kingboyk 11:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, thanks. Jogers (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining? 

message: An increasing number of albums has something like "the album was leaked on [date] on BitTorrent" in their lead... Appart from the fact that these sentences are always unsourced, I think they are also unnotable, since pretty much every album is leaked a couple of days before its regular release, and I don't really think it's worth mentioning, except in cases where this had some kind of effect (The Eminem Show being released earlier than originally planned, for example). While I haven't removed any of these sentences from any article, I have seen other editors do it and I was wondering what the general opinion on these is. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree to remove them as they are current event information that are ephemeral, diminishing rapidly in meaning over a few days or weeks and trivial, unimportant both at time of posting and in future. Fantailfan 11:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm disagreeing. They're unsourced because they are self-evident. Besides, a link to a torrent site would prove the point adequately. Pretty much every album is leaked? Yes, but pretty much every album gets an official release too; that doesn't diminish its significance. In any case, for albums that have yet to be released such events are the only real-world developments regarding those albums, aside from label press releases. --W guice 14:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A link to the torrent site?  Do we really want to encourage that?  It seems to me that advertising a torrent site that participates in trafficking commercial music releases is tantamount to using Wikipedia to encourage piracy.  I've no interest in starting a debate about piracy itself - whatever your feelings on the topic, it's still illegal, and I'm not sure that it's such a good idea to give free advertising to a website that enables users to do something illegal, if for no other reason than for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility.  Aside from all of that, torrent links tend to be pretty transient.  Linking to a page that's likely to be gone in a week or a month doesn't seem especially productive on what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.  Incidentally, count me in as one who agrees with the proposal to delete the references to album leaks that aren't notable.  -Erik Harris 18:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, personally i don't think we do want to encourage that, but do read it again - i didn't propose actually doing it at any point, i was merely pointing out that it's disingenuous to claim that the reporting of a leak is unsourced/unsourceable, when a simple empirical test (observing it on the page) shows that it patently is sourceable. --W guice 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the proposal but good luck implementing it. Some tides just can't be stemmed. With regards to posting links to sites which breach copyright, I'm pretty sure there's a guideline or policy somewhere prohibiting it. Can't remember where it is at the moment so if anyone's interested you'll have to dig around for it :) --kingboyk 19:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reports about leaks can be included if they are notable (in example, when the Red Hot Chili Peppers album was leaked, they wrote about that in their blog (or somewhere). That is a notable report of a leak. If MTV reports the album could be found in places before it released, that is a notable report. If it is stated that in MyVeryBigTorrentSite.com the album was leaked a week before released, that is original research. -- ReyBrujo 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is merely stated, then maybe. If the files are demonstrably available for downloading it leaves original research and becomes common knowledge. --W guice 19:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot demonstrate they are for download without including a link to a page or torrent, which is a bordeline case of copyright violation I would prefer skipping. Also, I prefer not to use "common knowledge" arguments. The article must be as informative for fans as for casual readers. I assume common knowledge when stating the sky is blue, the ocean water is salty, the summer is warm, but not in technical issues. -- ReyBrujo 19:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i addressed that further up in this section. The point isn't to link to torrent sites, the point is that whether anything is linked or not, the information is still patently verifiable by all and sundry, and to insist otherwise merely looks like disingenuous technical quibbling. Also, no offence, but i couldn't really care less about your personal opinion on common knowledge. the whole point of that concept is that it's bigger than individuals' opinions -- W guice 20:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I just don't get the point of posting the information - this isn't a news site. Unless it has an impact on the album's official release date, it is information that is merely ephemeral - "It rained that day" - and trivial. Fantailfan 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict, reply to W guice) No offense taken. Consensus is what rules Wikipedia, and so far it appears you are the only one against removing them. Burden of evidence is in the one who is adding the information to the article. Thus, you can't rely on common knowledge to solve these cases, nor expect others to search for a reliable source reporting the leak themselves. I agree on having the leak mentioned if they are so by reliable sources (MTV, musician's blogs, CNN reports, whatever), but not if the only evidence is a torrent file in a server. -- ReyBrujo 21:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (sorry, Rey, I ec'd you). I'm trying to point out that a datum that has to be removed after its "expiration date" is a datum that shouldn't have been there in the first place. In the context of an catalog project, which is what WikiProject Albums is, adding and removing information relating to current events is not meaningful. Fantailfan 21:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This album was leaked" 

message: If there is a guest musician on a track, where should it be noted?
In the track listing, like this:
#"Once Were Warriors"– 3:15
#*Guest vocals by Al Barr
Or should the song be listed as normal and list the guest musician in the credits with all of the other musicians, like this:
*Al Barr – guest vocals on "Once Were Warriors"
I guess another question is would it depend on how many tracks the guest musician was on? As in, if the guest musician was on 3 or 4 of 12 tracks, would it be dealt with differently than if they were just on 1 track?
For reference, I usually do it by listing them in the credits, but I wanted to see if I was doing it right.
- Joltman 14:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I add the guest musician under Additional personnel and refer to the song by number. Fantailfan 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guest musician - in track listing or credits? 

message: Harvest_Records has always been owned by EMI. Does it make sense to make Harvest into a subcategory of EMI, and delete the EMI category from any Harvest release (unless it has been reissued)? edgarde 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like the right thing to do, if what you say is true. <B>Troubleshooter</B> 06:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  subsidiary labels as subcategories of major labels 

message: I suggest that the metacritic link should be included on the "Professional Reviews" section, if it has one. That makes the user to see an overall reaction of the critics, and look for more reviews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jakeshow (talk • contribs) .
:It's an alright idea, but Metacritic calculates some reviwes strangely, turning A+'s into % values, and at times, some albums have maybe 5 reviews on that site while others have 30 giving them a sort of bias. It's just as simple and easy to take the review they have there and put them in the professional reviews, since they source them and everything! Andrzejbanas 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also only goes back to 2000. Fantailfan 22:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metacritic Suggestion 

message: Early notce: the category is back up to around 25 entries, so someone might want to take a look before it keeps growing. Aelfthrytha 19:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * i've (with some other people working at the same time i think) got it down to 25, the ones left are either completely baffling (Ibiza Chillout Mix Volume #4673689467) or will need some article-wide renovation (Pastor Troy album) but i'll have a bash. Now, anyone wanna help clear Cat:Needs album infobox?? -- W guice 11:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Uncategorised albums|Cat:Uncategorised albums]] 

message: Why exactly are there reviews in the album infobox? These are POV per definition and as such have no place in WP. Spearhead 09:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are the Academy Awards, and yet they have an article, too. I think that objective discussion of POV opinions surely belongs on Wikipedia, and that how an album was critically received is certainly an important part of an article about an album. An article itself should not be POV, but it surely can mention that there are different opions on the topic and what these opinons are. While "the album X is wonderful" is POV, "Y said the album X is wonderful" is a fact. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the phrase "use your best judgement" isn't very specific. The most commonly used links are listed here. Links to user-submitted reviews like Rate Your Music are not acceptable. Jogers (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews