Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Infobox colours

I changed the colour of the infobox on Music (Madonna album) recently (from cornflower blue to orange), but it was reverted with the edit summary: "(reverted colour, all madonna records are to have diffrent colours, passing to the cover)". Does anyone know what the status of this claim is? I've asked the editor responsible (Beautifulstranger), but I thought that I'd check here too. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

about the catalog numbers. I do add them on all the albums. It's my point of view, that they're appropriate. I think this info is helpful for those who is interested to find that album or to check if they have this edition already.

color, you know I've studied colours and paintings. And you know sometimes it's very difficult to pick a right combination of colors. And who decided that it should orange? you know that screaming color is very hard to combine with another. It looks awfull. It hurts my professional eye.

the worst thing of all it that you do this change with a single page of albums. They all are made with one concept, but you take one and make it you way so that you destroy it, it falls apart. all the pages (e.g. madonna albums) are made as one and you make "music" with you style, it looks tasteless, vulgar. why? I cannot comprehend it!

the next thing is that these MOS is a law here or a proposal? you act like it's a law. I think it should a proposal. It is called a FREE encyclopedia!!! What you do is you take freedom away. No step aside, it's not creative at all. It's dismotivating. --Beautifulstranger 21:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Just from checking Madonna (1983 album), it seems that user, without discussion on that article's page, changed the colour on October 12 to gray when they updated the infobox to include a re-issue. While the infobox colours may be arbitrary, I don't think its in WP:ALBUM's best interests to start over with different colour scales for each individual artist. That way lies madness, or, at least, endless edit wars over hexadecimal colour preferences. I also noticed that the Maddonna album template has every single album cover on it. --Jkelly 21:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to start a fight, but this orange colour is so absolutely terrible, that this is the sole reason why I don't like writing album articles. Can we change it? I know it would be a tedious job to change the colour in every article, but I'm willing to do it, just to get rid of this awful orange colour. That nice light grey which is in the article for Madonna's 1983 album would be fine. --Alensha 22:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the right to choose the color should be free. there should be harmony with the picture. Could it be explained to the Philistines? and the Madonna album template has every single album cover on it? is it also against the law? --Beautifulstranger 22:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Beautifulstranger, please reconsider your conversational tone. One doesn't need to be a "Philistine" to hold the opinion that aesthetic concerns are secondary in the creation of an encyclopedia. Nor is there consensus that wikipedia should be an exercise in creativity. You are perfectly welcome to hold those views, and argue for them, but remember to assume good faith when others express different ones. As far as album covers on templates being "against the law", the matter is somewhat more complicated. Please see Fair use, Template:Fair use and Template:Album cover. --Jkelly 22:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The albumbox colours have certain meanings, so they should be uniform. The eternal colour switching would be another problem, if they could be used freely. The style issues are secondary, but you should still be able to discuss them and possibly change them. I have never liked the orange colour, either. It is harsh, it looked even more harsh with the old albumbox templates which had more colour areas. The other albumbox colours don't annoy me at all. I prefer silver to light grey, because isn't so boring. But grey is already for soundtrack albums. I also played with light pink albumboxes, but pink is provocative colour for other, symbolic reasons. (The giiiirl colour!) Then I find the Web colors article, and from there navajo white. I consider it a realistic alternative, it is also different enough from the other albumbox colours. Have people more ideas on this? --Hapsiainen 00:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's time for some change, anything else but orange please. --Andylkl ^(talk) 05:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

then it should be better without albumbox colours at all. --Beautifulstranger 09:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

what meaning do they bring? it's already written on the pages a dozen of times whether it's an album or a compilation or something else. why should they colors have that meaning? if it's so, I'd make them better colorless. it's enough. --Beautifulstranger 09:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

yeah, orange is terrible. I agree. It's very difficult to pick a right combination of colors. And who decided that it should orange? you know that screaming color is very hard to combine with another. It looks awfull. --Beautifulstranger 09:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Can't we switch the colours and let studio albums be grey and soundtracks be a different color? The majority of the albums here are studio albums, it's not fair that they have the ugliest color :) The grey would be really nice. Or there are nice shades of blue and green, like powderblue, skyblue, lighblue, darkseagreen… These are light enough so we could use black text on them. (I wouldn't even have a problem with pink, though it would look funny in the article of metal albums :-D) Anyway, anything will be better than this orange. --Alensha 14:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The color of the infobox doesn't just indicate that the subject of the article is an album; it indicates what type of album it is. Orange indicates a full-length album of original studio material. The other "album" colors designate EPs, live albums, compilations, tribute albums, and soundtracks. All of those are technically considered albums, and that information is not always as immediately apparent in the article text as it is made by the infobox. --keepsleeping say what 15:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at the lists of albums in Wikipedia (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, #) before you decide whether it should be someone's task to edit each of those albums' infoboxes (as well as the soundtrack albums, if you wish to use that category's grey color) and replace each orange box with a "more harmonious" color. Whether the color is attractive to you personally or not, it is not there for decoration. --keepsleeping say what 15:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

←To be blunt, the choice of info box colours is abitrary and probably goes completely over the head of the casual reader. But by all means, let us try to be consistent. --feline1 16:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

After some thinking, I'm alright with any other colour, orange or not. Let's just keep it consistant. --Andylkl ^(talk) 16:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If we do change colors, then i suggest that User:Alensha and User:Beautifulstranger edit every single article and change the color. --Jobe6 (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I know it's not there for decoration, but neither is it there to be so ugly that it scares people away :-) I know there are lots of album articles, but I'll replace the boxes in them. (Although other people are smart enough to use bots for tasks like this...) --Alensha 18:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

...am I really the only person that doesn't have a problem with orange? But, of course, there must be consistency, and, as someone stated, the colors are not there for decorative purposes. --FuriousFreddy 19:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Why? The colors serve an organizational purpose. Just because it might not match some of the album artwork is almost completely beside the point. --FuriousFreddy 19:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

User:TUF-KAT apparently picked the colors, back in February of 2004. He proposed it, and the consensus accepted it. --FuriousFreddy 19:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to take this time to point out that all of the infoboxes for Madonna's singles are also improperly formatted. And, from first glance, they contain significant amounts of POV and fancruft as well. This is like Mariah Carey all over again. I'd start editing, but real world responsibilities becon. --FuriousFreddy 21:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with the orange color of the infoboxes. They aren't there for aesthetic value, they're there to symbolize what type of album it is. --Dalkaen (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well fine, feel yourselves like kings here. Make your statements. I'm deleting my account and stop adding something good to that thing. It's not worth it. Because you are not ready to change, to improve. You've made your rules here. But without changes you won't go far. You will be on the same boat. Even rules are a subject to be changed. But you do not comprehend it. It always happens when Philistines have the power. Do it on your own. Bye. Be happy to dismotivate one more Wiki-fan. Ex-fan. --Beautifulstranger 22:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what color we use, as long as we keep the same functionality/purpose/meaning beind them and the color is readable (that being said, we need to do something about the dark purple at Wikipedia: WikiProject Songs. --FuriousFreddy 00:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go, but why should we change rules for just one person? --FuriousFreddy 00:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Tuf-Kat's colors: Not many people followed the decisions of this project then. And no decision should be rigid and set to stone here. --Hapsiainen 19:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Madonna singles: That has nothing to do with this discussion. Beautifulstranger has edited those articles, so it sounds like you are needling him/her. --Hapsiainen 19:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Changing the rules for just 1 person: For three persons. And there are people that are neutral to this. We have had other more drastic changes in the past. We changed from table albumboxes to template albumboxes. It required more editing than this. I am ready to change the template colour for a hundred albums this week. I have lots of boring, little edits in my edit history, so I can bear this. --Hapsiainen 19:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Beautifulstranger was proposing using many, differing infobox colours so that they would pleasingly match the album art. As far as I know, she is the only one who was suggesting that course of action, so FuriousFreddy's comment was entirely accurate. In any case, I have no particular investment in the colour orange, and would be fine with someone attemption to achieve consensus on some other colour, but I would strongly prefer that the same someone could arrange for a bot to do the swapping, so that we don't have a variety of colours being used, thereby giving the impression that there is no standard. --Jkelly 19:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

←It wouldn't be as ardeous as the infobox conversions...or at least it doesn't have to be. The change is small enough where I'm sure a BOT could be run to do the task automatically. I'm sure someone who wrote one of those scripts could write one to change the the infoboxes that use the template if one of us asked them too. Remember, they would have to write one for that both infobox templates (unless we finally come to a consensus and delete the one with the unneeded album covers) and any article with the markup encoded into the article (like the Madonna and the Mariah Carrey articles would have to be done manually --Weebot 05:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I apoligize. --FuriousFreddy 16:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

So long as they can be changed reasonably and without being too much trouble, I have no opposition to changing the colors. --FuriousFreddy 16:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Does this mean that there's still some hope that the orange colour will be changed? :) I don't know anything about bots but if I can help in anything else, just drop me a line at my talk page. --Alensha 17:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Album infobox 2

The template Album infobox 2 has been up for a vote on deletion. But no consensus was reached, hence the template is still in use. I would like to see a discussion here about whether this template should be incorporated into this project.

The reason I created this template was that, after trying to air my thoughts here and not getting any response, I wanted to get it out to the pages so people could notice it and hopefully get a discussion started. It had to be done as a alternate template to Album infobox to not disrupt the use of the original. --Tokle 11:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I still think that the template should be deleted. It isn't fair use, and I have now time to give detailed reasoning.

From Copylaw: " Never copy more of a copyrighted work than is necessary to make your point understood. The more you borrow, the less likely it will be considered fair use." "Do not quote from a copyrighted work simply to "enliven" your text. Make certain you comment upon the material you borrow or can otherwise justify its use." "Being a non-profit educational institution does not let you off the hook. Even non-commercial users can be sued if the use exceeds the bounds of fair use." The two extra album covers in the template break these recommendations. The article that I am quoting was written by a lawyer, although I am not such. The copyright status can't be decided by voting in Wikipedia, because only the minority of people understands copyright properly. There are also other reasons not to use the template, but I think this is the pivotal one. --Hapsiainen 13:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The deletion debate is archived here. --Gyrofrog (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I voted delete on that infobox because it just clutters up the infobox and secondly violates fair use IMHO. See Hapsiainen's comment. --RedWolf 00:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I voted delete as well, and do not support its use for all the reasons mentioned. --Tuf-Kat 04:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I put the template up for delete, for the reasons given by Hapsiainen. The result was (omitting very new Users, etc.) 20 to delete and about 12 to keep (about 62.5% to delete). The fair use issue, though, means that editors are justified in deleting the images when they see them, which leaves us in a difficult position: a valid template that can be validly deleted on copyright grounds. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It is true that the guidelines governing fair use are extremely diffuse, and they can be read differently by each lawyer, depending on the way he wants to angle it. I cannot claim to be a lawyer myself, and I see that this might be a borderline case. (All Music is doing something similar, though [1], with pictures as links to the album articles.)

That said, I don't think the TfP page was the best place to hold that discussion, I would rather have done it here. It seems like the most serious editors from this wikiproject are opposed to my chronology idea, which makes me inclined to join the opposition. --Tokle 15:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Because AllMusic is a merchant (partnered with Barnes&Noble), its use of the album images is presumably authorized by the label/copyright holder. Even if there were no effective authorization, the "fair use" claim of a merchant to use images of what it is selling rests on a basis that clearly can't apply to Wikipedia. --Monicasdude 17:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this should be kept. It is quite clear that album art is fair use. The only gray area where this might violate Wikipedia policy on the topic is "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." I will agree with this out of principle, however, these album arts are already on wikipedia and are simply being used to redirect to the appropriate pages in a more visually pleasing and organized manner. I don't think this constitutes using "more" copyrighted material, we're just re-using the same material a few more times. I don't think this template is in infringement of fair use laws and principles, and I highly doubt anybody would be interested in bringing forth a fair-use lawsuit against a non-profit educational ressource which is, in essence, promoting the albums in question. --Comics 21:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see Template:Album cover. If we are going to use album cover images as decoration and navigation guides, that template needs to change. I strongly suggest that it first be discussed with Wikimedia's legal team first, however. --Jkelly 22:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I have raised the question of changing policy and fair use rationale at Template talk:Albumcover, Wikipedia talk:Fair use and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use. Please feel free to add to the discussion there. --Jkelly 18:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Album cover currently states "It is believed that the use of [...] images of album or single covers solely to illustrate the album or single in question [...] qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law". I believe this covers using images as navigational aids (since the images are only being used to illustrate the album in the navigational area). I don't think Template:Album cover needs to be changed. --Locke Cole 15:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

←with all due respect to y'all, this discussion is a sorry example of wikipedia at its worst: a blethering collection of fan-boys and internet hacks voicing unfounded opinions on a legal issue, when the vast majority of them have no legal training or qualifications whatsoever. Moreover the whole discussion is ultimately an arbitrary one of style (ie presentation/aesthetics) rather than to do with facts and accuracy, and the criterea being applied seem wholly arbitrary and often wildly out of step with common practice elsewhere in the world (eg the crazy idea to put track timings first before track names). Go get a proper legal opinion on the matter! --feline1 15:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As a suppoter of this template, I find it helpful and appealing to the eye. As for all this "fair use" talk, I tend to agree with feline1 that no one appears to have a definitive answer on what is legal or not. It seems to fall down to personal preference, and personally I don't see where this infobox style offends. The artwork samples are small enough to not be obstructive in the infoboxes and yet just big enough to recognize for those who may be familiar with album artwork and not always the title. It also shows a further measure of care and respect for the album and, in particular, the artist(s) who created it. And Wikipedia is supposed to be user-friendly, and I think small artwork samples over the album titles are most useful for that reason. I can not see any other earthly reason why this template should not be used, other than it doesn't look "good" to the subjective editor - because that's what it really boils down to. I would rather we reach a decision ASAP, because the template's availability tells me that it is still valid and allowed on Wikipedia. Otherwise, it would have been deleted by now, no? --BGC 00:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

And these comments should settle the question for any reasonable editor, since none of the justifications set forth here falls within the recognized categories of "fair use" under American law, no less the more restrictive criteria applied elsewhere. As the Copylaw page referenced by Hapsiainen above makes clear, "enlivening" one's own work by unauthorized use of copyrighted material is not fair use; "fair use" requires a more substantial relationship between the material used without permission and the use to which it is put. --Monicasdude 01:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

While I have some sympathy for User:Feline1's point about "blather" when it comes to legal issues and the internet, I think that it is worth pointing out a common mistake about this, which I have made myself. The opinion of a member of the bar would, in this case, be of little help, because the one and only way for anything to be definitively proven "fair use" or not is to have the case go to trial. "Fair use" is a defense one may claim at a copyright infringement proceeding, not typically something one conflates with licenses to reproduce. Wikipedia's "proactive" use of this defense is unusual. --Jkelly 20:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Notable records and redlinks

I was fixing up The Kinks Discography, and I noticed that the singles list has thirty two entries, and only four articles. Is this normal? Should it be? Speaking as a Kinks fan, I can't imagine articles being written on half these songs, and I wouldn't link them. What do you all think about this? --Freekee 03:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

question

I just noticed this... The example infobox on this wikiproject page is different than the templated infobox shown. As you can see... it doesn't make a difference in terms of content, but the layout is different. Does it not matter? I think the layout should be consistent all throughout. What do you guys think?

{{Album infobox | <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->
| Name = 
| Type = 
| Artist = 

{{Album infobox |
  Name        = Dirt |
  Type        = [[Album (music)|Album]] |
  Artist      = [[Alice in Chains]] |

--Gflores 21:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

If you feel inspired to move the example's line-breaks over to the left, I can't see any reason why you shouldn't do so. --Jkelly 22:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I coincidently just noticed the same thing, and I changed it thinking it was no big deal, esp since I think it is easier to understand for those less familiar. I missed the fact that there was a question here about it; my watchlist just said 'question'. If anyone feels that it is better the other way, with the "|" at the end of each line, feel free to change it back. --Qirex 22:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ziggy example needs to be replaced

That example was added all the way back in 2002, and while it may have been suitable then, standards of quality have changed. (1) It suffers from excessive wikilinking, (2) it mostly reads like a list, (3) the language is flamboyant. I think it should be replaced or simply removed. Smile is the only featured article that is about an album, so we may be able to draw from it. --Jiy (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Switching it to something else would be fine with me. --Tuf-Kat 04:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. --Qirex 04:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

MoS-conflicts in example infobox

In another of those, "why didn't I notice that before?" moments, I realised that in the example infobox, there are links to October, as well as 1990 etc when not part of an entire date thing (ie, not as part of October 15, 1992). In the Manual of Style it states that these kinds of date links should not be used. Anyone mind if I remove the linking? --Qirex 04:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Longform videos

Should longform music videos, such as The Band's The Last Waltz or the Talking Heads' Stop Making Sense, be considered within the scope of WP:ALBUM? I ask because I made some edits recently to Live in Chicago (Jeff Buckley) and thought it would be really useful to have an album-info type infobox, but found that one didn't seem to exist. So, I put it to you: should longform music videos be included in the definition of "albums" and given their own infobox and category, or should they continue to exist in the nebulous unstandardized space between music and film? --keepsleep 05:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Seasonal dates

I often come across articles listing albums / EPs as released in summer 1999 or fall 2001 etc etc. Aside from the fact that 'fall' is a US-specific word (as far as I know), it strikes me as an awfully ambiguous way to describe a date, given that the seasons are reversed depending on which hemisphere one happens to live in. I've been correcting dates written like this whenever I see them (either finding the precise date or, failing that, deleting it leaving just the year). I was wondering if this issue could be mentioned on the main project page, in the hope of steering people away from this practice? --Qirex 04:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Manual of Style, which I'd suggest is primary reading on the creation Wikipedia articles, certainly both above and before this project page. --Jkelly 04:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't find a mention of it on Manual of style nor MOS (dates and numbers); are you talking about some other sub-page? I read through both of those entirely to make sure I didn't miss it (although I didn't look there before posting my question, which I should have done). --Qirex 06:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I just checked myself. I am either mis-remembering or it has been removed. --Jkelly 01:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

How about this then? A brief paragraph under the 'Style' heading of this project page, or under the 'Albums, bands, and songs' heading at Project Music (or both?):

"Do not describe uncertain dates by using the season name, eg "released in winter, 1995". This can be ambiguous as northern- and southern-hemisphere seasons occur at opposite times of the year. Instead, use the most accurate date possible, such as "February 1995" or "early 1995", if a more accurate date cannot be verified."

I don't really know how these things should be worded; I think it looks okay, but I encourage anyone to suggest changes or to write the paragraph for me :) --Qirex 04:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that no one has raised any objections/other suggestions, I'm going to go ahead and add the paragraph in. --Qirex 15:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

another question

What's the recommended way of adding the time? Should it be xx min xx s or mm:ss? From what I've seen, most are using the former. Does it even matter? --Gflores 04:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This wound up being discussed pretty thoroughly a while ago at Template talk:Album infobox. The consensus was to use mm:ss. Many templates have yet to be updated. --Jkelly 04:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I see... Maybe this should be emphasized more somehow, b/c just looking at a few of the infoboxes recently created or converted, most are xx min xx s. If we're going to be updating all to mm:ss, then we probably shouldn't be creating them incorrectly, don't you agree? --Gflores 04:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent creations should be following the instructions at the project page (or the template page, for that matter). You might want to direct anybody you have noticed creating new ones with the deprecated system to the conversation at Template talk:Album infobox --Jkelly 04:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Non-standard infoboxes

I noticed User:Noboyo has been changing some articles' album infoboxes to a non-standard type that has additional fields (executive producers, album certification, chart position) and also changed the infobox color to a color that matches the album cover. The articles in question are the following:

• PCD (album)
• Roc-A-Fella Presents: Teairra Mari
• Chapter 3 : The Flesh
• The First Lady
• Complicated (album)*
• Goodies (album)
• Moodring
• Raydiation
• Libra (2005 album)
• I Care 4 U
• It's About Time (album)
• Confessions (2004 album)
• Damita Jo
• Simply Deep
• Dangerously in Love
• Full Moon (album)
• Afrodisiac
• After The Storm

I think something similar was done to the Madonna albums a while back. --Teklund 09:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

A lot of those albums hadn't had infoboxes to begin with, so I gave them all templated ones and left a message about WP:ALBUM on the user's talk page. --User:Keepsleeping 16:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

infobox2?

I noticed on some album pages there are covers of the next/previous album in the chronology. example: Blackacidevil. Is it recommended to start doing this from now on? What is the code for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gflores (talk • contribs) 18:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

See [2] --Jkelly 18:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly not "recommended," as there's no consensus for its use and significant opposition, particularly on "fair use" grounds. --Monicasdude 19:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting... so why do some users continue to use them if there's such a debate around them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gflores (talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Because there was a vote for deletion on the template and it failed. Therefore it's still free to use. I don't know about recommended, but it's fair game. Where it says "infobox" when editing an album box, just add "2" to it. I'd simply follow any of the hundreds of album articles that uses it to create you own if you wish. --BGC 21:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not. Changing from albumbox 1 to albumbox 2 is against the project recommendations, and doing it repeatedly borders vandalism. Also according to albumbox 2 deletion vote, 16 users wanted keep it and 20 delete it. I excluded IPs and newly created accounts from count, as it is usually done in Wikipedia votes. This means that you have no grounds pushing albumbox 2 to articles. --Hapsiainen 10:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where you get the idea that it "borders [on] vandalism". It adds value to the articles that are converted from infobox1 to infobox2 (at least when more is done than simply replacing "1" with "2", e.g. - actually taking the time to include album covers). --Locke Cole 10:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally like infobox 2 (but I don't think its deletion is the topic of debate). I am confused though by the conflicting statements as to whether it's okay to use it. It seems common sense to me that if it is against project recommendations, it should be deleted, and that since it's not (and already survived nomination relatively recently), it's okay to use. But where does it say that infobox 2 is against recommendations? There is a distinction to be made between an idea being recommended against and an idea not recommended (ie, just the absense of recommendation). The debate for deletion is here, incase anyone wants to read over it (I wish I could add my vote). --Qirex 11:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If the template contravenes Fair Use copyright law, then votes on wikipedia have no jurisdiction or validity over it whatsoever. It shouldn't be used. Some wiki users unfounded opinions make no difference. There's no more to be said. --feline1 11:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK Wikipedia is ran by consensus (with exceptions such as where Jimbo weighs in). Right now the consensus seem to think infobox2 is fine. If there were fair-use concerns, surely they should have been brought up when it was proposed for deletion. If they weren't (or were refuted or not convincing enough), then that leaves me with the impression that the consensus supports the template and that it should be used wherever it is practicle. --Locke Cole 11:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia might be run by consensus, but lawsuits against wikipedia would be run according to US Law (if that's where wikipedia is hosted). Believe it or not, US Law was not formulated by a few fanboys and computer nerds having "votes" with about 30 participants. The defence that "but Jimmy, age 17 and a half, High School student from Ohio, said Infobox2 was cool!" is not gonna stand up in court /rollseyes/ --feline1 12:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

←Just like the argument that "Bobby" who has no stated qualifications whatsoever shouldn't be able to come along and arbitrarily say something isn't fair-use. *rolleyes* In the absence of an absolute authority on the subject, consensus is what we've got. I'm sorry you don't quite understand that... --Locke Cole 12:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There's consensus that albumbox 1 is appropriate to use on Wikipedia. The best that can be said about infobox 2 is that there's no consensus that it's appropriate to use, that in discussion more editors have opposed than supported its use, and that its use contravenes several broader guidelines supported by consensus. And Jimbo Wales has weighed in on the more general issue recently, calling on editors to avoid the unnecessary insertion of images claimed as "fair use." --Monicasdude 13:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

albumbox 1 is irrelevant. And I disagree about your view on albumbox 2-- the fact that it faced a deletion attempt and survived tells me that the consensus is that it's OK for use as a replacement to albumbox 1. If it were in violation of the guidelines and rules I don't see how it could have survived. Just about the only thing we seem to agree on is that if Jimbo were to weigh in, his word would decide it. But for the moment, I don't believe it's unnecessary, the images are functionally useful as a navigation aid. But that's just my opinion: equal in status to yours and feline1's. --Locke Cole 13:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with my understanding. It is you who can't seem to appreciate the difference between purely internal wikipedia affairs, and those where it has to interface with the outside legal world. This is the latter case, and what we would require is a consensus of external legal opinion, not a consensus of wiki users. --feline1 13:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"If it were in violation of the guidelines and rules I don't see how it could have survived." - your premise here is entirely false. You are assuming that wikiusers never make mistakes (why would we ever need to edit anything then?!) and that all competant people always vote on every issue put forward (which, if could count the numbers of votes versus the numbers of wikiusers, is clearly nonsense). --feline1 13:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate it just fine, but I also appreciate that so far nobodies presented a legal argument other than their opinion on the laws right now. In the absense of a legal authority, consensus is all we have. Or are you suggesting we simply avoid fair-use images altogether since clearly we can't get a legal opinion on every case? Why is just this usage of fair-use drawing your ire while all the other images floating around in articles don't seem to bother you? --Locke Cole 15:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm assuming that the consensus system in place is working, and that a majority of wiki users believe album infobox2 is within Wikipedia's guidelines or else they wouldn't have accepted it. It is you who seem to be trying to buck the system here and impose your own opinion over the opinions of those who reached said consensus. --Locke Cole 15:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You have the logic of the situation bass ackwards! We KNOW the law exists, we KNOW that copyright subsists in the images we are using - it is therefore, in the eyes of the law, beholden upon WIKIPEDIA to actively seek legal advice as to whether its actions fall within Fair Use! You cannot instead say 'well none of us could make up our minds, and we're none of us legally competant to make a decision in the first place either anyways, so we just thought we'd plough on ahead regardless'. 'Get Real', in fact. --feline1 16:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Look, maybe you don't understand fair-use, but it's often very subjective and each instance of fair-use needs to be handled differently. You can't just say "no fair-use images in a template" because there's simply no legal basis for that assertion (or if there is, it hasn't been asserted to me, and I'd happily read up on something if I was simply given some proof that this isn't just someone spouting off legalese to get things done their way). IMO the onus is on the people trying to stop the usage of this template to prove that it's usage violates fair-use. Otherwise Wikipedia will never get anything done if everything has to be scrutinized legally before being tried.. --Locke Cole 16:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You have to get more than a majority of votes to be allowed to delete a template. For deleting an article the proportion is two-thirds, for becoming an admin the threshold is 75-80 %. I'm not sure what the threshold is for templates, but it can't be anything less. Like I already said, the majority wanted to delete the template, but there wasn't enough of them to have it deleted. The non-fair use rationale is now in the discussion archive 4, I think that the discussion was moved there too early. But here is a link to it. "Never copy more of a copyrighted work than is necessary to make your point understood. The more you borrow, the less likely it will be considered fair use." "Do not quote from a copyrighted work simply to "enliven" your text. Make certain you comment upon the material you borrow or can otherwise justify its use." "Being a non-profit educational institution does not let you off the hook. Even non-commercial users can be sued if the use exceeds the bounds of fair use." --Hapsiainen 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The majority? It was 19 votes to 19. Dead even. --BGC 01:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Only if you count sockpuppets and votes which didn't comply with the voting guidelines on the TfD page. --Monicasdude 02:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup. And they're valid. --BGC 03:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

←I have posted a lengthy summary of the situation and thoughts on how to move forward at Template talk:Album infobox 2. --Jkelly 21:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Dubious Professional Reviews

The regard the guidelines tell us we should all have for professional reviews does not take into account:

1. The appalling standard of album reviews often found in all leading organs of the music and national press. This has frequently happened because:

a) These organs allow hugely unqualified individuals to write them with little or no expertise, musical, literary or otherwise.

b) Many reviewers didn't like the artist they reviewed nor their work.

c) Some reviewers produced their views under the influence of hallucenagenic drugs.

2. As a consequence of "1." above, thousands of professional reviews since the origin of rock/pop music are of no use whatsoever to readers of Wikipedia and further, will actually be harmful; yet we as writers are supposed to use them.

I feel strongly that many Wik writers/editors will be better placed to write informed opinions and analyses of rock and pop artists and their albums than many of these "so-called" professionals and should be encouraged to avoid leaning heavily upon their work.

(though as a writer not currently working for the national press, 'I would say that, wouldn't I?' - however, this does not invalidate the points made above. --Thoss 00:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

While I may not disagree with the sentiment, please see Wikipedia:No original research, which is pretty much non-negotiable. --Jkelly 01:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the O.R rule excludes this anyway, but one other issue to bear in mind is that when fans etc write reviews, it is invariably baised, and the album seems to always recieves either the lowest score available or the highest. Just look at the misleading and often ridiculous reviews at sites such as rateyourmusic.com --Qirex 02:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This is why we should try to link to many reviews from each album's article. People can read the reviews for themselves and decide what they accept and what they ignore. --Rhobite 02:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of "fair use" image

I just removed the album cover in our example template set-up. I would really, really like it if someone knew of an album cover that is licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain, because I think that the "Nocover.gif" doesn't do justice to the template. Unfortunately, though, Wikipedia:Fair use policy disallows it. Any ideas? --Jkelly 03:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have two possible ideas, but I don't know if either is any good. Someone could make a mock-up album cover with the name of a non-existant band. It wouldn't be hard, and I could do it if you want, but not for a few weeks until my good computer with photoshop etc returns from being borrowed. The other possibility is just using some image from wikimedia commons, but it probably won't look much like an album cover. Still, would be probably be better than nocover.gif. --Qirex 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I have a couple of friends who are in the business of making album covers, but none of the bands involved would pass WP:MUSIC. If someone would like to be bold and put in a Commons image temporarily, I'd encourage them in it. --Jkelly 04:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's an appropriately licensed mockup; even though it uses a real artist's name, I think it's so self-evidently a spoof that there'd be no problem (except with my sense of humor) [3] Of course, if you like it and want to use it, you'll have to change the text in the sample infobox . . . --Monicasdude 04:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can recruit User:Fastfission to draw a mockup similiar to his fabulous Image:Fair use icon - Movie poster.png, Image:Fair use icon - Book.png, etc. --Jiy (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

New template for soundtrack albums

I created a new template, Template:Album infobox soundtrack, and have outlined the whys and hows on the talk page, along with a question about how it should be. Please comment if you have a problem with it / don't like it / do like it / think it should be deleted / have suggestions / etc. --Qirex 12:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Chronology issues and others

What's the protocol for dealing with legitimately issued albums that don't sequence naturally, often because they show up from artists' original labels after their contracts have expired and they've signed elsewhere. Right now, for example, the Van Morrison chronology and discography omit the 1974 LP "TB Sheets," which included a significant amount of new material. The Grateful Dead discography and chronology miss "Vintage Dead," which was released in 1970 but predates the band's first studio album. There are lots of other examples out there. The chronology section doesn't address whether albums should be listed in release order or recording order; the practice seems to be release order. For artists in the pop/rock mainstream, there usually isn't much difference, but if/when the project turns some serious attention to major jazz musicians, there'll be a lot more variance.
And while I'm here, I'm noticing that there's not a lot of consistency in albumboxes as to whether albums initially issued on LP (but not CD) should be termed "albums" or "LPs". I would think the more format-specific tag would be a better choice; it's a bit more informational, and, as more historical articles are written about earlier musical releases, more specific format information will quite often be appropriate. --Monicasdude 03:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree about the LP/Album issue. I think the generic "Album" term should be used instead of the specific format of the release. New albums are often released in different formats simulaneously — should we then clutter the infobox with something like "LP/CD/DVD-A"? Old Beatles albums may have been released as LPs originally, but does that mean we simply ignore their subsequent reissues on CD? The generic "Album" avoids any of these slight POV issues of favoring one format over another in the infobox. It is informative to note that an album was originally released on LP, but that can be done in the article body. —Jiy (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm just way uneducated about that era of music, but I never really equated 'LP' with 'vinyl'; I just thought of 'LP' as 'long play', synoymous with 'album'. So, I guess it makes little difference to me which term is used, except for issues of consistency etc. With regards to the first point, I think that whatever system is logical for each artist should be used. Mostly, the release date should be used. But where it's appropriate, such as in the above examples presented, the recording date should be used. I don't see a great need for rigid, unworkable rules. --Qirex 10:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Extended Copy Protection Info

I have added a section on Extended Copy Protection to albums identified by the EFF as containing the controversial feature. Given that this has been a hotly debated subject in the news and has spawned class action lawsuits against the record companies, it seemed eminently relevant to the albums singled out in particular. Here is the text I've pasted:

In November 2005, it was revealed that Sony was distributing albums with Extended Copy Protection, a controversial feature that automatically installed rootkit software on any Microsoft Windows machine upon insertion of the disc. In addition to preventing the CDs contents from being copied, it was also revealed that the software reported the users' listening habits back to Sony and also exposed the computer to malicious attacks that exploited insecure features of the rootkit software. Though Sony refused to release a list of the affected CDs, the Electronic Frontier Foundation identified ALBUM NAME as one of the discs with the invasive software.

I added this along with a link to the eff article: Are You Affected By Sony-BMG's Rootkit? (November 9, 2005) from Electronic Frontier Foundation

Does this seem excessively long, pov, or irrelevant in someway to the album articles? My edit to Shine (Trey Anastasio album) was reverted as "completely unnecessary info", but my request for clarification on the album's talk page has gone unanswered as of yet. I thought it might be a good topic to put up to the WikiProject, to see if this information was relevant, or if there was a more appropriate way to note this info. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Busy here today. I'd suggest that it is neither POV nor irrelevant, but that, yes, it is a little long. Since there exists an article on this, um, "feature", I'd further suggest that a single-line summary, such as "ALBUM NAME was identified as being distributed with Sony's invasive Extended Copy Protection software{{ref|EFF}}, which installs itself on computers playing the compact disc." in the article's "Production history" section. The specific article in question is not very long, and I can imagine that User:Adam22z objected to half the article being taken up with this discussion. I write the above assuming that there is no substantial question about the EFF report. --Jkelly 22:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I also think this is notable and not POV. However it is a little long and the sentence JKelly suggested propably is better (one might even consider using a template for this, similar to Template:copycontrol).

Also, November 2005 should not be linked according to Wiki's date formatting guidelines. --Fritz S. (Talk) 22:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on category conventions

If Category:Fooband albums and Category:Fooband singles exist (as per current guidelines), should they be parented by Category: Fooband or not? Please add to discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Any_consensus_on_categories?. --pfctdayelise 02:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Graduation from stub-status

A constant debate within the stub sorting community focuses on the criteria for deciding when an article is not a stub any longer and the stub template can be removed. At present there are a couple of guidelines for this among them being article length and degree to which the article covers the topic area; however, the guidelines are sufficiently fuzzy (which is ok) that a wide range of interpretations emerges, sometimes resulting in elevated blood pressures.

I believe that topical WikiProjects have a role in the decision making process as to when an article in their topic area should be considered a stub article or not.

I suggest that this WikiProject address the stub criteria matter in the context of {{album-stub}} and any childdren of this stub type that might emerge (see WP:WSS/ST#Music for a listing of stub types in the music topic area). I would suggest the following checklist as a guide to stub sorters and editors in general; if all items are able to be checked off as "present", the article should no longer be considered a stub article. The main purpose of this guideline would be to help regain the purpose of the stub template as a call for editorial action, allowing editors to re-focus on those articles that do not meet the minimum guideline-suggest content for this article type; the Category:Album stubs contains about 3000 articles (15 pages) at present.

(Draft) Checklist of album-article contents for guidance as to whether an article should be labeled a stub or not

• {{album infobox}} present (need not be filled completely)
• album cover image present
• record label present
• album title present
• article has been placed into the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Albums by artist, Category:Albums by year and Category:Albums by genre

  this implies the presence of information on the artist, release date and genre in the infobox and/or article body

Thank you for considering this. I do not anticipate that implementation of these guidelines would lead to a dramatic reduction in the number of stubbed articles overnight, but I think there are definite advantages in coupling the aims of a topical WikiProject and the efforts of the stub sorting community. Regards, Courtland 14:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Application of the guideline

Taking a look at Power in Numbers, the version shown looks like it would no longer be a stub; however, it has not been categorized according to genre, though the genre is present in the infobox. I have added the category (see version) but left the stub template present pending outcome of this discussion. --Courtland 14:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• ... and here's where the guideline stumbles: the artist is already categorized by genre; therefore, genre-based categorization of the album is superfluous until such time as the artist turns to another genre. The superfluous category has been removed. --Courtland 14:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Bootleg Albums?

What is wikipedia's policy on bootlegs having articles? Several already due such as A Skateboard Party. Bootlegs have existed for a while but soon after cd burners and printers were common many cd-r bootlegs came out which are certainly not noteworthy at all. However many original and unique pressed bootlegs have been released years ago. Most bootlegs usually have clones aswell. Blue Moon Records and a few other companies were big producers of such bootlegs until they got raided. Added them all would be horrid for band articles and the more articles needed for the bootlegs? Perhaps 1 page per band with all the more common bootlegs? Or just only allow their mention if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NCase (talk • contribs) 04:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, only mention a bootleg if the group itself put it out. And even then, don't give it an article unless it's a very very important recording of theirs. --FuriousFreddy 02:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

A bootleg released by a group sounds like an oxymoron... I'd choose notable performances for inclusion. I'd vote for Keep, if it was ever VFDed. --Madchester 06:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Some acts release unofficial albums that they don't want to release through the record company (I think Prince has done this, for example). --FuriousFreddy 01:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Forty Twenty almost-random stubs

Taking a look at forty stubbed articles, here is the breakdown based on the proposed recommendation mentioned above, it looks like that a) the % of mis-classified articles is low and b) about 50% of the stubbed articles can graduate with only a little bit of work.

• pass stub-graduation test (4 → 10%)
  • A Lethal Dose of American Hatred (needs a bit of formatting cleanup), Face Value, G N' R Lies, God Loves Ugly

pass test except for ... (13 → 32.5%)

• needs additional categorization
  • A Man Called E, First Light (album), From the Ashes, Growing Out of It, Honest (soundtrack), Kite (2001 album), Pagan (album), Pixel Revolt
• needs genre
  • A Kiss in the Dreamhouse, Fabrique, Flag (Yello album)
• needs genre and additional categorization
  • From the Land of Volcanos, Once Bitten

fail stub-graduation test (remainder → 57.5%): A Hard Road, A Life Less Plagued, A Little More Personal (Raw), A Little Soul in Your Heart, A Lot About Livin' (And a Little 'Bout Love), A Lot of Little Lies For the Sake of One Big Truth, A Lump of Coal, Fables & Dreams, First (album) (needs translation), From Wishes to Eternity, Girls' Night Out, Heart Food, I Phantom, Infame, Jester Race, Legs XI, Live Heroes, Lost & Found, Maldita Vecindad y los Hijos del Quinto Patio, Metallic K.O., Mothball Mint, Neat, Neat, Neat, No World Order

--Courtland 18:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)>

The number of wrongly stubbed album articles is pretty low because I went through all albums stubs (in April, I think) ago and removed the stub notices along some personal guidelines that pretty much match the ones you propose above. Noone seems to have objected then, even though one user did ask about it later. You can see this exchange (with more of my reasoning) on my talk page and in Grenavitar's archive. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought that maybe one or more people had done this, not only for this WikiProject but also for most of the other relatively active ones. Thanks for confirming my suspicion. My question then moves to one of whether there should be a communication between the general stub sorting community and this (as an example) WikiProject that refers non-WikiProject members to the specific "guidelines for graduation"? I've already received some mild push-back over this as being potentially unworkable due to the large number of stub types, but I think it is likely workable for some of the larger stub categories which have quite active associated WikiProjects. Thoughts? I could set down a few words that might appear on the WikiProject page and some more that might appear somewhere in the Stub Sorting realm if you think this would be a useful notion to pursue further. --Courtland 01:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

updated --Courtland 01:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Member Template

I created a template for wikiproject members to add to their user page. Template is here. Simply insert {{AlbumWikiProject-Member}}. --Gflores ^Talk 08:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

List of notable albums

Think that all of the really important albums have already been covered? You might be surprised what is missing. I compiled a List of notable albums (critically acclaimed or top selling) as part of the Missing encyclopedic articles wikiproject. The goal is to create blue links for the each of the albums and the artists. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Neat WikiProject there! Was hoping if the article can be alphabetically split for easier editing. --Andylkl ^(talk) 18:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice work. After a quick scan, a lot of the redlinks can be turned into redirects, as they are just alternate capitalization of articles that we do have. A number of others are Greatest Hits albums, about which there is often little to say, although those can also become redirects if it seems at all likely that someone will search on them. There may be "false positives" as well, since the article that an alum title on the list is linking to is not necessarily going to be an article about that album. --Jkelly 18:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I will try to implement your suggestions to make it a little easier to work with, though any help you can provide pruning the list of valid blues (there is coverage of the album in wikipedia) would be great! You are right about the false positives too, 1999 goes to the year not the album. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I broke the list into 6 separate pages with about 500 per page. I hope that makes it easier. I would break it down further, but I prefer larger lists on a fewer amount of pages, though I will change if other people who decide to work on the list prefer it the other way. About greatest hits...I disagree about not having enough to say, much of the same information is still useful. Who compiled it, what years of compilation, new songs if any and reviews exist for most if not all compilations. There are many critically acclaimed and best selling compilations like Greatest Hits (Billy Joel albums), The Great Twenty-Eight and Legend (album) --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Should we be removing all the albums that are complete (after checking that the link actually points to the album and not something else)? I also fixed a few available albums which were red links b/c of some alternate spelling (the -> The). --Gflores

Yes please remove them from the list. If you are interested you can also create a redirect for the redlink. While there are some bad reformats on my part, "Dave (Band) Matthews" that no one would type, someone out there thinks that the albums is named/spelled a particular way. But you don't have to do so if you aren't interested. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You may want to check the progress that this project has made. Most of the lists have been pruned and false positives identified. A great deal of the work has been done by Gflores, so props to him. While there is still work to be done much of the work has been categorized: article creation, need infoboxes or and be disambiguated. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. For example the article Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band looks close to A-class to me. Are there any featured articles on albums? Can you suggest some A or decent B-class articles we might use? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 05:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Links in infobox chronology sections

As I've been cleaning up articles and conforming infobox to guidelines, I've been removing wikilinks from years in the chronology sections of infoboxes, in accordance with MOS guidelines. When they turn up in the same sections, I've also been removing wikilinks from the "US" and "UK" notations, when release histories vary across markets, assuming that the same principle would apply. I've noticed other editors doing the same thing, sometimes in other sections of infoboxes as well. But I can't turn up a precise style guideline on this point. Any comments (particularly on whether such links should be removed from other sections of the infobox, as when US and UK editions have different release dates)? --Monicasdude 17:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

When it comes to linking years, the links should be removed (as you do) in according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_formatting. As for US and UK, these usually should not appear in the infobox anyway (linked or unlinked), as infoboxes generally should only include the original release date in the infobox (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Details). --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, of course, about the original release point, but sometimes you get different editions released in different markets at the same time, or releases on different labels, as here [4]. And variations across markets in release history, as here [5]. I think the same principle about not wikilinking years in the chronology calls for not wikilinking the occasional US/UK notation, but would it apply in the main section of the box as well? --Monicasdude 17:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)