Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 19

message: Abominog, for example, has the code Category:Uriah Heep albums‬‬.  Clicking on it brings you to Category:Uriah_Heep_albums%E2%80%AC (see the URL).  On the other hand, Category:Uriah_Heep_albums has not yet been created but contains two albums by the same band.  So what's with the "%E2%80%AC", why does the above code point to this and how should this get fixed?--Fisherjs 12:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an invisible character. I removed this from the above-mentioned album, but this should be changed for the other albums by this artist as well, Category:Uriah_Heep_albums should be created, and Category:Uriah_Heep_albums%E2%80%AC should be deleted. (In certain web browsers both URLs confusingly look the same.) --PEJL 13:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category weirdness

message: Just a heads-up for those not watching Template talk:Infobox Album; there is an edit proposal at [[Template talk:Infobox Album#PROPOSED CHANGE Producer(s) ---> Producer]]. --PEJL 14:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this change was made, including making the field labels occupy less width, which means there is now more space available for actual content. I think that is a noticeable improvement. --PEJL 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox edit proposal 

message: I've just updated a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Summary. I've written a script so it will be updated regularly by Jogersbot every time I run it but no more often that every day for small categories and maintenance lists and every week for big categories. This stuff may be useful again. Jogers (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! The names of some of the items under "Special lists" are less than obvious. May I suggest renaming the other items in the same vein as User:Jogers/List3, to something like "New articles", "Wonky articles" and "May need redirection". It might also be useful if your other lists were included. --PEJL 15:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some comments but feel free to tweak it as you like. As long as you leave the comments before the values that get updated the bot should have no problems with parsing the summary. Jogers (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, this may be better. Jogers (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's what I had in mind too. Thanks! (Note that they're all at 0 now though.) --PEJL 15:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm working on it :-) Jogers (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album Project Summary 

message: I notice that this page has no mention of certifications. I am in the midst of creating a list for the multiple country organizations who certify albums (i.e. RIAA, CRIA, IFPI), and a list of links to their databases, or how to get there in some cases, especially on foreign language sites. I would like to share this list with the WIkiProject if we can fit it in somewhere. I was also thinking of adding what # of sales/shipments are required for a old, or platinum certification, but that might be making it too long. So when I finish, should I include it on the project page, or make a subpage? -- Reaper  X 19:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out my progress: User:Reaper_X/Rockbox#Certifications. Will anyone give me a response here? -- Reaper  X 06:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is an excellent resource that you are creating! I would think it best to have it on a subpage—linked from the Project page of course—but only because the Project page is fairly long already. --Paul Erik 12:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Certifications seems like a good place for it. --PEJL 11:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Certifications

message: I am late coming into this discussion, but I would suggest an additional change. The usual style guideline for a sentence fragment is not to include a period at the end. (This is the case with entries on disambiguation pages, or any lists whose entries do not consist of complete sentences.) So in the Track listing section, I would move the period outside of the quotation marks: ... can be stated at the top as "All songs written by Gordon Gano". If the majority of the songs were written by the same person, this can be stated as "All songs written by Gordon Gano, except where noted". Thoughts? --Paul Erik 01:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I proposed what I did because it was and is more common for the period to be included. If we are to adhere to the sentence fragment rule, I'd rather see us convert it into a proper sentence, for example by recommending: "All songs are written by Gordon Gano." --PEJL 07:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done that particular songwriting credit style with several of the album entries that I've done since I started here. -- CJ Marsicano 15:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: We hardly ever have sentence fragments in normal paragraph context (not in tables, lists, infoboxes and so on). I guess I never realized this wasn't a complete sentence. Omitting the period just looks strange to me, because of the paragraph context. --PEJL 19:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: While rules of sentence structure dictate that the period be inside the quotes, it would be more appropriate to move the period outside the quotes, since the example text will appear as a sentence fragment. However, speaking as someone who's detail oriented, I must question why we're discussing this detail. I can't imagine anyone going out of their way to remove an improperly placed period in an article (but if they do, that's their prerogative) and I find it less likely that an edit war would begin over it - but the album project says there must be a period! (again, that's their problem). In short (too late!), Paul, this isn't really policy, so change it if you want. I'm sorry if I sound like a jerk here - I'm just trying to remind people to focus their efforts where they'll do the most good. Besides, notice I weighed in on the issue myself. :-D -Freekee 04:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that you sound like a jerk; I do need the reminding sometimes not to get too caught up in small details. And yes, I did notice that you weighed in with an opinion, Freekee. :-) --Paul Erik 11:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songwriting credit 

message: An anonymous user has added a lengthy and unsourced list of awards for 10cc albums at the 10cc page which are presumably for British sales, though this isn't stated specifically. It's a long list and probably less indicative of the sales and popularity of the albums than the chart placements, which are also on the 10cc page. The WikiProject Albums page contains no provision for such lists. I'm inclined to delete it, though the gold/platinum status etc could be added as a brief reference on the Wiki page for each album. Any opinions? Grimhim 11:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say ask the anon about it, about their source and what these certifications are for. Then I would integrate it into the discography tables you already have there; just make a new column called "Certification (Country)". If you really want to get rid of it until what country the sales are for and a source is indicated (I would), I'd stick it somewhere temporarily, like a personal sandbox or something. That's my opinion. -- Reaper  X 17:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think a better place for charting info is the album article. The band article could use a summary. I don't think the awards are necessarily notable enough to devote a whole section to. At the very least, the awards should be listed in the discography tables, since the current list is a bit confusing. -Freekee 03:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Note: The figures indicated for what is silver, gold etc aren't what they are (or have ever been) in the UK, so i don't think that they're either right or for the UK. Now, I think that certifications are important, but here they're find of strewn about, when they should be centralised into the discography (which should be split out, in this case, to allow the page to be shorter).--lincalinca 09:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exhaustive list of awards (gold, silver etc) 

message: The article is up for FAC. So i request everyone to kindly review the article and do post your comments. Thanks a ton! Luxurious.gaurav 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Love.Angel.Music.Baby]] 

message: I need figures :) Kamryn · Talk 06:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know for exact figures, but you can always use certifications if the albums are popular enough for rough figures. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Certifications. -- Reaper  X 00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, Reaper X! Jogers (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone know where I can find information about album sales? 

message: Anybody knows what happened to over 2000 WikiProject Album articles? Here the count decreased that much after only one week. Jogers (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing articles 

message: I realize that when there are multiple albums by the same name (e.g., there are albums by the name Necessary Evil by Deborah Harry, Pat LaBarbera and George Marinelli), the artist name should appear in parentheses (e.g., "Necessary Evil (Deborah Harry album)") in the article title.  However, what if (as in the example I've been using), the there is only one article on Wikipedia on an album by the particular name--should that article then occupy the "(album)" space?  (In this case, I am considering moving Necessary Evil (Deborah Harry album) to Necessary Evil (album) if it would be appropriate.) --Evil1987 14:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that would be appropriate. You can always move the page back when further disambiguation is necessary. Perhaps the guideline could be clarified in respect to this? Jogers (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  It would indeed be helpful if the guideline were clarified. --Evil1987 16:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I thought WP:ALBUM#Naming was pretty clear about this. Is it the "For multiple albums with the same title" part that is unclear? Do you have a specific suggestion for improvement? --PEJL 20:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article naming 

message: I thought it apropos to alert this WikiProject of a problem ImageRemovalBot is creating for band pages with discographies in gallery format. I have requested feedback here. Chubbles 09:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ImageRemovalBot and Discography

message: I've just unleashed Jogersbot to make some of the most straightforward fixes to album articles. Please let me know if you find any problems. Jogers (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General fixes with Jogersbot 

message: At WP:ALBUM#Track listing I propose we change:
:If all songs were written by the same person/team, this can be stated at the top as "All songs written by Gordon Gano." If the majority of the songs were written by the same person, this can be stated as "All songs written by Gordon Gano, except where noted."
to:
:If all songs were written by the same person/team, this can be stated at the top as "All songs written by Gordon Gano." If more than a third of the songs were written by the same person/team, this can be stated as "All songs written by Gordon Gano, except where noted."
to make changes like this more in line with our guidelines. The current phrase using "a majority" was just something I chose without much thought (see discussion). I've since seen editors interpret this very literally, and remove "All songs..." lines in favor of credits on each track when only applicable to about 40% of the tracks. I think having albums use "All songs..." lines in such cases is preferable, because it avoids some repetition, decreases the inconsistency of using full names on some tracks and last names on others, and decreases the number of links next to track names (which some find visually distracting). --PEJL 12:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm opposed to this on the grounds of instruction creep. Hyperspecified and arbitrary rules should be avoided when possible, to avoid the impression that Wikipedia is some sort of bureacracy. Leave the guidelines vague and let users use their best judgement. Skomorokh incite 14:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If all songs were written by the same person/team, this can be stated at the top as "All songs written by Gordon Gano." If many songs were written by the same person/team, this can be stated as "All songs written by Gordon Gano, except where noted."
That leaves it quite vague where the cut-off point should be, but will hopefully in practice lead to a cut-off point somewhere below 50%, to achieve the previously mentioned benefits. --PEJL 17:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Cool, where do you stand on "most/several/than one" for the cut-off? Skomorokh incite 17:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I know that I might get a reputation for being detail-oriented, but since you are proposing a change anyway, I would like to make another plea for removing the period at the sentence fragment. Many album articles include it, but it looks strange to me, sitting at the end of a sentence fragment, and in particular when there is a list immediately below it, which, appropriately by rules of punctuation, has no period at the end of each entry. Another minor style quibble is that the MoS discourages the use of slashes, so I suggest "person or team" rather than "person/team". Oh, and (while I'm here...) I do think that this is a good idea to change "the majority" to "several" or something similar. :) --Paul Erik 04:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Details are nice. ;-) As I mentioned before, having something that is more obviously a sentence fragment in a paragraph context looks strange to me, as all other text in album articles at normal paragraph size and position are proper sentences. Can we possibly compromise and change it to a sentence (with "All songs are..." or similar)? That would also work better for cases like "All songs written by Foo. All music written by Bar." Definitely "person or team". Anyone mind "several or more"? --PEJL 05:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! Now I understand what you mean by "in a paragraph context"—sorry I was slow to clue in to that. I do see your point and I would be fine with "All songs were..." or similar. I guess that the downside to making any sort of change here is that it may be bothersome for editors (and readers) to adjust to a new format for the songwriting credit when it has been stable for a long time. Given the absence of anyone else commenting, I will leave it to your judgment, PEJL, whether or not that sort of change is worth the effort and incoveniences of changing. As for the other issue, I do like "several or more". --Paul Erik 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While changing articles and habits will take some work, I do think the change is worth it, because we want this guideline to be in line with WP:MOS. I'll change this to "All songs were..." when I make the change proposed above, unless objections to either change are raised over the next few days. --PEJL 12:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. --PEJL 13:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track listing credit fraction 

message: I just had a look at the statistics for the project.  At the moment, we are looking after over 60,000 articles and we have assessed the quality of almost half.  Of the assessed articles,
*92% are stubs (24951 articles)
*6.7% are start class (1824)
*1.2% are B class (322)
*0.12% are GA class (33)
*0.07% are FA class (18)
In summary, I think we're doing OK with regular maintenance tasks as we have a lot of nicely formatted start class articles.  We could probably do more to help people get their articles further up the quality scale however.  It may be worthwhile adding cleanup tags to the B class articles to help guide their editors to GA class.  I'll start work on it soon.  Anyone else interested? - Papa November 10:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article quality 

message: We've recently had a question raised over at WikiProject Musical Theatre regarding the naming conventions of the cast recordings of musicals.  Someone came across Hairspray (2002 soundtrack), which is horribly misnamed as, strictly speaking, it's not a soundtrack.  Should it be Hairspray (2002 album) or Hairspray (cast recording) or something completely different?  If anyone has some wisdom to impart, the discussion just started here, and we would love some insight.  —  MusicMaker5376 21:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an album, the normal album naming conventions (see WP:ALBUM#Naming) should apply, which means it should indeed be Hairspray (2002 album) (as there is a different album by the same name by this "artist" from a different year). If for some reason that naming scheme is unacceptable for these types of albums, we should update WP:ALBUM#Naming. --PEJL 01:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. An article is named for the title of the subject, and disambiguated by the medium (film, album, etc.) and year, if necessary. -Freekee 02:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though there's always a chance of duplicity when doing this, but I suppose in those cases, we'd just disambiguate further (i.e. Hairspray (2002 American album) vs Hairspray (2002 English album)). --lincalinca 03:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, WP:ALBUM#Naming already covers this duplicity: For artists who release multiple albums with the same name, disambiguate by year, e.g. Weezer (1994 album) and Weezer (2001 album) (unless the albums were released the same year, in which case they can be disambiguated by some commonly accepted convention). So Hairspray (American album) and Hairspray (English album). --PEJL 03:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what if there were more than one American album and more than one English album? Never rule out the need for further disambiguation. :-) -Freekee 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, my point was just that the convention dab (CONV album) replaces the year dab (YEAR album), it doesn't add to it (YEAR CONV album), just like the year dab replaces the artist dab in the simpler case. --PEJL 05:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually referring to the fact that many musicals, particularly, have multiple productions in the same year (Fame was on in 98 in UK, US and Australia, from memory). --lincalinca 10:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, OK. In such case the year might be part of the "convention" part. --PEJL 10:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The naming conventions are at WP:ALBUM#Naming. From them follows that Ray should be at Ray (Craig Armstrong album), as there is another album named Ray, but no other album named Ray by that artist. Chess should be at Chess (2002 album) if multiple Chess albums were released by the same artist but only one in 2002. If multiple Chess albums were released by the same artist in 2002, it should be at Chess (SOMETHING album), where SOMETHING is something that sufficiently disambiguates the album, possibly including year and/or country and/or something else, but only the minimum needed to disambiguate. There should never be two sets of disambiguation, only disambiguation using (album). --PEJL 17:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical cast recordings