Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 20

message: There is an undocumented "Type" parameter value "double album" that is supported by  and . Does anyone know if there is a reason this is undocumented, such as that it was intended to be phased out? I can see an argument for just labeling double albums as studio albums, as it's somewhat orthogonal to the other types (consider triple albums, double live albums, double compilations, and so on). If we want to support "double album", we should add it to the type and color table (which I moved to ), but we may want to add a shorter code for it first (like "double") for consistency with the other codes. Otherwise we can remap "double album" to output "Studio album". --PEJL 06:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think double album is appropriate since it is media specific, such as if an album is a 'double album' on 2 vinyls but then fits on one CD. -Joltman 13:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any objections to remapping "Double album" to "Studio album"? --PEJL 05:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested this change be made. --PEJL 14:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noting here that this change was made. --PEJL 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double album 

message: I could have sworn WP:ALBUM#Label said to pipe away suffixes like " Records", but I see now it doesn't. I propose we recommend that, for consistency with Template:Infobox musical artist, to match current practice, and for space reasons. Let's copy the text from the artist infobox but make it slightly more general, by appending the following to the end of WP:ALBUM#Label:
:Drop words like "Records" from the end of the label's name (e.g. use Universal rather than Universal Records.)
That seems quite non-controversial, if it weren't for the fact that our main example infobox does not do this. Any objections? --PEJL 09:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there was less of a space issue for albums because of generally shorter lists (of labels) for an album than for an artist...? Anyway, Template:Infobox musical artist/doc and Template:Infobox Album/doc ought to be consistent, one way or the other. --Paul Erik 22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I believe it's not there, not for the purpose of inconsistency, but because it's a matter of context. If you say in the infobox "label: Columbia Records" then you're overexplaining, when the type is explained under "label". If you say "This album was released by Columbia", you'd be better of with putting the "records" after because some may think you're referring to another Columbia, like a town in Virginia, an Aircraft company, a University. I know I'm talking about the lowest common denominator here, since many people would know it's a record company, it would probably be unencyclopedic to rule it out. --lincalinca 11:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Linca, I don't understand what your position is. Note that WP:ALBUM#Label and the proposal is only about the label in the infobox, not the article body. (I agree that piping away the label is inappropriate in the article body.) In the infobox the phrase "Label: " is always shown before the label, like "Label: Columbia". Do you disagree with the proposal? --PEJL 12:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the statement based on it's tautological nature. You don't (well, I don't) say "I'm going to drive my Nissan car". You simply say one or the other word, as one implies the other. It's implied in the context, and so I don't see the need of having the word "record" in there. Am I not being straightforward enough? I can tend to give too many illustrations and confuse the point. Sorry about that. --lincalinca 11:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, call me retarded. I just realised your proposal, which I was "disagreeing with" was actually what I agree with. I misread it thinking you were proposting to remove the piping protocol. Sorry. Yeah, pipe em all. --lincalinca 11:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. --PEJL 14:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's done? Calling Linca retarded? -Freekee 02:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehh, no, the addition of the italicized proposal above. --PEJL 04:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Label piping 

message: * From Behind the Shadows 12 August — Preceding unsigned comment added by ceyockey (talk • contribs) 
** Speedy delete A7: Article about non-notable band (decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Thousand Falling Skies) Papa November 11:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is being discussed here... why?  --lincalinca 11:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there does not appear to be (to me) an nominations-for-deletion notification mechanism in place for this WikiProject.  If one is in place, could you please inform here?  Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference for this notification convention? WP:PROD contains nothing about notifying WikiProjects. --PEJL 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no convention. This activity is a test action period initiated by me as the outcome of a discussion on Article for Deletion talk. It was determined that a) there should never be an obligation to notify as a part of policy and that b) it was a matter of good form to conduct some form of notification and c) notification of individual editors was problematic and d) notification of relevant WikiProjects was a reasonably neutral course.  Many WikiProject use the resources created by Wikiproject Deletion Sorting now; WikiProject Albums appears to be one of those that does not. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think using the main talk page is appropriate for this. From User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals I gather that we can use a separate page either at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums or Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Deletion. --PEJL 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are among the more commonly used options, yes.  I would be glad to use and encourage the use of either. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Speedy deleted - author blanked page.  No other significant contributions Papa November 07:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominations for deletion via [[WP:PROD]] 

message: When I click the link at Robert Christgau  [ ]  I can see no review. The documentation should probably use different example. Jogers (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Christgau's reviews have been discussed a number of times in the past. Besides here (most recently at archives 14–16) also at Talk:Robert Christgau#Links to reviews on album article pages and Talk:Robert Christgau#How legit is this guy? --PEJL 15:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he may be "the most famous rock critic in the world" but still the "professional reviews" field is, as the name implies, for reviews not just for ratings or icons without a single word about the album in question.  Jogers (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't participate in those earlier discussions on Christgau. However, while I think your point has merit, Jogers, my belief is that even a short review and a rating by a professional can legitimately sit in the Professional Reviews section. Cheers, Ian Rose 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind a short review by a world renowned professional but in several cases there is no review at all. In case of the example given at infobox album documentation there is no single word about the album in question, only the bomb icon. Jogers (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I agree that reviews with little or no text should not be included. The problem with Christgau is that it is only his "dud" ratings (represented by the bomb symbol) that don't include any review text, while his other ratings do. If we were to include only reviews with text, in practice we'd be favoring the more positive reviews, which doesn't seem very NPOV. As for the example, I believe an example with a "dud" rating was chosen intentionally, to imply that a such reviews/ratings are acceptable to include, as the understanding at the time was that they were. --PEJL 17:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that sole rating doesn't constitute a review. Jogers (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Christgau has reviewed these albums, hasn't he? --PEJL 23:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has he? How can you know if the only thing he said is "dud"? :-) Seriously though, I was always assuming that by reviews we mean professionally written articles not somebody's mental process. A link containing only an icon next to the album name is not useful at all for anyone except those familiar with Christgau's rating system. Jogers (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume he has, as it would be quite unprofessional of him to give a rating of an album without reviewing it, but will admit that it is difficult to prove. Also agree that these ratings are not useful except for those familiar with his rating system. Still not sure that's reason enough to not include them, as we'd be removing the most negative ratings from one of our main review sources, which could skew the perception of many albums. --PEJL 10:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people may not even know that they are negative. When I saw the bomb icon for the first time I thought it means that the album is good because of connotations that the word "bomb" has in my native language :-) Jogers (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's ambiguous, see the bomb (positive) vs bomb (positive or negative). --PEJL 11:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The link to the review, even if it's just to a single icon without text, serves to source the information. Besides, these pages usually contain a link to all the artist's albums that Xgau has reviewed. / edg ☺ ★ 03:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it doesn't alter the fact that it's not a review and it's useless to readers unfamiliar with Christgau's rating system. Jogers (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Besides, the problem is not with the link. I don't think that this information should be included in the "professional reviews" section of the infobox at all. Jogers (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Like I mentioned above, I agree that a rating without text is not useful in general, but have concerns because removing such ratings would effectively remove all negative reviews from one of our major review sources, which might cause NPOV problems. --PEJL 02:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see a problem with including a bomb rating. It does give the opinion of a professional source (if one understands what the symbol means), and it's not much less useful to our readers than a rating from a text article which is not linked, like from a print magazine with no online version. I wouldn't use the scissors icon without including which songs he likes (but personally wouldn't use it at all). -Freekee 04:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Christgau review example 

message: I'd like to standardize the formatting of the dates in the professional reviews section (see last paragraph at WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews). We want the dates to be as compact as possible, but unambiguous and understandable to as many as possible (see issues with ambiguous date formats at Calendar date#Date format). Note that abbreviations such as "Aug" are acceptable in these space-constrained situations (see first bullet point at WP:DATE#Longer periods). Elsewhere dates are usually written as "August 15, 2007" for articles using US standards or "15 August 2007" for articles using UK standards (auto-formatting intentionally disabled for these examples). Given that, here is my proposal:
:Because dates are not auto-formatted and space in the infobox is limited, they should be formatted as either "Aug 15, 2007" or "15 Aug 2007" depending on the date format used in the rest of the article.
--PEJL 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need dates in the professional reviews section. In the reception/critical reception section, it's really to the discretion of the page author, I consider, wherther it's necessary and, ultimately, appropriate to have the specific date that a review or article was written. I mean, if you have someone wro wrote an inflammatory article about the USA that was printed on September 9, 2001, and then the whole country unites as they did 2 days later, then you might have cause for writing this. Otherwise, it's in my opinion, only appropriate to give a time if it's written drastically after the album's release, or a pre-emptive review written before the author actually heard the album (which got a colleague of mine fired, for the matter, and was cause for Uwe Boll to call a baxing match with several people who reviewed his film poorly despite not seeing it, but simply knowing it's Uwe Boll... but then again, you don't need to drink water to know it's wet... where was I?). Anyway, i don't think it's appropriate to encourage the practice, in short, in long or otherwise. --lincalinca 11:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another reason to include dates is to allow readers to look up reviews in physical magazines. In some cases the dates are available at the link target, but not always. What do others think about discouraging dates? Looking through the archives for old discussions on this topic, I found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 12#Professional review dates in infobox, which my proposal above is partially in line with. --PEJL 13:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A continuation of this discussion, regarding possibly using an expanding box for reviews, was moved to User talk:PEJL/Template:Proreview#Professional review dates
So, there was some discussion (initially here, then moved to and continued at User talk:PEJL/Template:Proreview) about possibly using templates to show reviews differently than we do now. There are however some technical problems with using templates for this purpose. As that discussion has stalled, I would like to re-propose we adjust the current guideline (which already recommends using dates instead of the word "link"), to standardize the formatting of those dates, per my original proposal above. --PEJL 14:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional review dates 

message: As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether the albums linked in KBCO Studio C are notable enough for own articles. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 10:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My take on it would be that they are notable, but certainly need some wikifying. Though it may make a very long page, it might be a better idea, based on how short each article is, to merge them into one article. --lincalinca 11:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert review: KBCO Studio C 

message: I noticed that User:Jogers is looking for a new collaboration task.  As I mentioned above, I think it would be good to do some maintenance work higher up the quality scale.  We've done a lot to improve our low quality articles, but we should also aim to improve our high quality (B-class and above) articles to FA-class.  Here are some suggestions for simple things we can do together to ultimately improve our GA/FA count...
* Check that non-free images in our high quality articles have fair use rationales, correct source information and correct license tags
* Check that non-free images are a reasonable resolution (< 300px).  Large images should either be tagged with  or replaced and tagged with .
* Add cleanup tags to B-class articles
* Reformat footnotes using citation templates
Does this seem like a reasonable approach? Papa November 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind the task but it would help if Jogers (or someone else) could create a list which could be whittled down (to be updated and maintained like the others or not).  I don't look forward to clicking all the articles in :Category:B-Class Album articles to check which articles have fair use rationales.--Fisherjs 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I would be able to create such a list. Jogers (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration task 

message: I've noticed a mini-revert war on The Weakerthans' new album Reunion Tour, regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the fact that the album has been leaked to BitTorrent as of mid-August 2007. This hasn't yet gotten to the point of being a serious revert war, but it's been added and removed a couple of times now, so we should probably clarify nonetheless: should Wikipedia articles on albums include the information that an album has been leaked to P2P networks in advance? Or should we regard that as inappropriate and unencyclopedic trivia? Bearcat 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We recently added a guideline about leaks to WP:ALBUM#Dating. --PEJL 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's partly unencyclopedic, but not entirely. It's more that it's potentially libelious and generally is unable to be adequately referenced. There are times where a leak is appropriate to mention, such as when the band draws specific attention to the leak (such as here or here) because of the media attention the leak itself attracts. Generally speaking, though, in 99.9% of cases, it's unencyclopedic cruft. lincalinca 08:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: That article, being a stub, is unlikely to support such a claim anyway. It's definitely cruft in that case, because there's hardly even mention of the musical style, release, reception, personnel or recording infomation. A leak is far less important than any of these things. lincalinca 08:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, that guideline doesn't surprise me at all. It seemed to me that the only conceivable reason to add that information to the article would be as a "hey, it's on BT, come and get it!" flag to other users — which seems to me like something an encyclopedia shouldn't be doing anyway. Bearcat 05:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ISTM that what we are talking about is how an album is distributed - would we say whether an album was only available in certain stores? Would we say a certain DJ will be playing the album in full on his radio show next weekend? If not, I doubt if we should mention any P2P at all. --Rodhullandemu 09:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BitTorrent

message: Album covers are not allowed in discographies. Please read WP:ALBUMS#Discography for further information. I have therefore reverted your edit on The Cramps so the covers have been removed. Please do not reinstate the covers. -- JD554 08:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed numerous times in the past. See for example Talk:The Beatles discography#Problem with album covers. To try to summarize briefly, fair use images such as album covers should only be used to a very limited extent, where album covers in album infoboxes are generally acceptable, but album covers in discographies are generally not. --PEJL 04:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with PEJL that album cover art should be used in limited circumstances.  As a rule of thumb, I think it's fine to use it in an article that dedicates at least a few sentences of prose to the album.  Obviously, it's OK in the article about the album.  It may be OK in an article about the artist or musical genre, if placed next to a section about the album.  Just using it to make a list look pretty however, isn't acceptable.  I started a discussion here about whether it is acceptable to use album art in a Song infobox for an unreleased single (e.g. Where Is My Mind?) I'd suggest it isn't, but please could I have others' opinions? Thanks Papa November 07:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree that covers in discographies are more decoration than anything - a discography can easily survive IMO as a simple list or table. In album infoboxes I consider it a no-brainer. I also think they're legit in non-single song articles, as anyone who's seen my work on Bowie album track articles will know. On that subject, I note that my friend Papa November has deleted the instances of the "Heroes" album cover from its song articles and I think it's worth discussing in this forum. I'm not 100% certain if he deleted them because there wasn't a fair use rationale for its appearance in each song article or simply because he considers it unfair use no matter what - I suspect the latter! I'm not fussed from an effort point of view as all the infoboxes for the songs were copies from the first one I did, just changing the track info. However I would argue that as an intrinsic part of the album - where I think we all agree a cover is justifiable - the rationale for including the cover in a song article is similar, and I believe those song articles would be improved by reinstatement of the image. By all means the FUR on the cover image should list each song article and note that fair use is claimed for all of them, as well as for the album article. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject... Cheers, Ian Rose 08:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You caught me red-handed, Mr Rose!  I've been trying to improve the fair use status of the B-class article images such as :Image:DavidBowieHeroesCover.jpg, so I've added a fair use rationale for its use in the "Heroes" article.  I didn't feel I could justify its use in the songs articles such as Joe the Lion, so I removed it from those articles rather than adding a fair use rationale.  The image should now have a pretty rock solid fair use claim attached to it.  My feelings about song articles aren't set in stone, and if there was more of a consensus in favour of it, I'm sure we can put together fair use rationales where appropriate.  My issue with use of album art in song articles is that song articles are not necessarily extensions of the album article.  As an example, a song may appear on several different albums (e.g. songs recorded jointly by two artists, songs used in soundtracks, greatest hits compilations etc).  In this case, would it be fair use to include every album cover in the song article? If not, which cover would be used?  Songs are therefore distinguishable from the album(s) containing them and I don't think that the words "from the album..." are enough of a justification for use of the album cover art. Papa November 09:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree that song articles are not necessarily extensions of the album article, and that's a perfectly fair point about songs that appear in many albums, as even non-single (and sometimes quite obscure) tracks will pop up in compilations, soundtracks, etc.  However the fact that there may be cases which are 'difficult' in that way shouldn't penalise the cases where the song was written for a studio album and the song articles are pretty clearly an extension of the album article (illustrated by the infobox with its 'From the album...' legend and the song's position in the album track list, etc). Even then there are people who will argue that we shouldn't bother with song articles at all but should just merge them into their 'parent album' articles. As you can imagine, I don't particularly subscribe to that view because I think a comprehensive album article can be long enough without an extensive discussion on each song, particularly when you consider all the cover and live version info you can go into re. individual tracks. To take "Heroes" and "Joe the Lion" for example again, the album cover - and the song infobox as a whole - serves to identify where that track originally came from at a glance, i.e. the album "Heroes". The fact it's appeared on a few compilations doesn't mean we're opening the floodgates for every man and his dog to put other album covers in the article as well. I can't remember ever seeing that in any song article I've had much to do with.  If I did see it happening, I'd probably delete them myself. Cheers, Ian Rose 09:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's appropriate to use album art in song articles, absolutely. The only thing is that song article should have a good amount of content, and be notable enough. It isn't worth violating #3a of the Non-free content criteria if the album art is used on a bunch of stubs. Besides that, good song articles should absolutely use the album art, because if it we're not for the recording sessions of that album, that song might not exist; it marks it's point of creation. A good illustration for the article. -- Reaper  X 17:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Album covers

message: How about doing things the way an RFC does.  Allow me to propose a sample:
: The Language field MUST be used when the album:
:* Is in a non-English language, OR
:* Has multi-lingual releases, OR
:* Is in English by an artist known for their non-English body of work.
: Additionally, the Language field MAY be used when:
:* The album is in English, but the artist is from a country whose major languages include non-English languages
I guess the points I'm trying to make are:
* Have some specified as MUST, and others specified as MAY.  We could also include some SHOULD items.  
* We need to specify whether the points are AND or OR
I'm not suggesting that the MUST/MAY items I've listed are the ones to use.  I recommend using this section to discuss the layout (ie. MUST/MAY, AND/OR, and that sort of thing), and the section above to discuss the content.  
See http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt for definition of terms
-- TimNelson 00:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree that we need to label all non-English albums (and you mischaracterized my comments above).  In many cases, it will be quite obvious that the language is not English.  I also think this is getting into instruction creep.  That said, something along these lines, but a little more casual, is probably workable.  Xtifr tälk 08:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The RFC 2119 meanings are more or less what I've meant when I've used these words, but I've tried to make them more casual by not uppercasing them or referring to the RFC, because I assume most readers of this guideline aren't familiar with the RFC. --PEJL 17:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: I have just created my first album article (Rattlesnakes (album)), doing my best to provide information as per guidelines. I took the information on the album's charts directly from the article about the band, Lloyd Cole and the Commotions. I do not know where to independently verify these figures, and they are not sourced in the original article. Is there a resource where 1980s songs can be tracked in this way? I'm sure this question has been asked before, but did not find it in a scan for the first few pages of your lengthy archive. Apologies if I'm accidentally hitting on a FAQ. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart Ranking 

message: I have created a new deletion sorting page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs, which emerges from discussions here and here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion sorting 

message: I was working on Minority Rules, and came across an interesting problem. The album has four hidden tracks, with the first one being all silence and the last three being songs that don't appear to have names. Any ideas on what to do? I've searched over the net for names of the songs, but haven't found anything. As it is, I labeled the silent track silence and the other ones Untitled hidden track. I didn't use quotes for any of these, because I think quotes would only be used on a proper title. Anyone have any opinions on how to handle this? -Joltman 15:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me, unless and until someone can determine the actual titles. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that WP:ALBUM#Track listing actually has text about how to handle untitled tracks, saying that the word Untitled should be used (without quotes). This was added after a discussion here. I'd use Untitled (silence) – 1:11 and Untitled (hidden track) – 3:12. --PEJL 17:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of Minority Rules, you'll find the track names on the sleeve of the album with the credits, almost exactly like the sleeve for Double Allergic by Powderfinger, which had 4 hidden tracks. In cases where this is not presented, PEJL's suggestion is what I would agree with, or an alternative would be to simply not note a name on the silence tracks (such as track 13 issues like on Room For Squares). lincalinca 02:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless we have a good reason not to, I think the Double Allergic and Room for Squares examples should be updated to use the method in WP:ALBUM#Track listing. --PEJL 05:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled hidden tracks? 

message: No, not Help! I'm referring to Help- A Day in the Life, which — I'm hoping everyone here agrees — is a poor choice of article title. Please see my comment at Talk:Help- A Day in the Life#Bad title and reply there. - dcljr (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed for "Help" album title 

message: One thing I like about our Project page, as compared to other projects, is that everything is on one page. The problem is that it's getting a bit long. Half of the page is devoted to the infobox instructions. It's all transcluded, so I'm not sure how tough it is to change that. I certainly don't recommend reducing the amount of instruction at the template documentation page, but can we only transclude half the page, and cut it off at the advanced usage (and put a "see here for more info")? I'm guessing not, but does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts? -Freekee 16:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can do that. In fact I just did so. Comments? --PEJL 16:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. It seems like the information is just as easily accessible, but no longer intrusive for the masses who aren't likely to use it. (Like, say, me. :)) It never specifically bothered me, but length of page does impact readability. --Moonriddengirl 16:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me too. Thanks a lot! Though I think we should include a little bit about the other things that are listed in the advanced usage sections. I'll do that later if no one else does. -Freekee 16:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made some adjustment (very minor ones) to reduce the width of the tables as it was wrapping outside of the screen for me (and I'm not on a small screen, so I can just imagine it'd be a paid for anybody on anything from 21" and under). I edited the navbox and the to do list and it seems to have helped it a bit lincalinca 01:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project page instructions too long? 

message: The list of stub-class articles with more than 2000 characters and containing "personnel" or "credits" section has been updated according to the latest database dump. Jogers (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List2 update note 

message: The project page used to have album-specific guidelines for how to classify articles. For example, we used to say that an article needs an infobox, personnel and track listing sections, and a paragraph of text to qualify as Start class. What happened to this text? There is now only a bare mention of assessment in the album template section (and a mention in the To Do list). Did we decide that such guidelines were no longer accurate? Or useful? There still isn't very much album-specific info on the Assessment page. What's up? -Freekee 16:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been moved to /Assessment. --PEJL 16:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't seem to have been moved there. That page has been in existence for a long time. We used to have our basic guidelines on the main project page, and then we linked to that page. I've been wanting more detailed album-specific guidelines for a long time, and now we've gotten rid of the few that we did have. -Freekee 19:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the edit summary says it was moved. --PEJL 20:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the album specific guidelines in the table here.  It contains everything that was in the original list, along with all the discussed changes.  Did I miss something out? Papa November 00:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. I just missed it. Sorry to bother you. =8-(  Though I would like to see a little more mention of assessment on the project page. -Freekee 05:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment