Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Album length

Prompted by this change, I was wondering if we could standardize how to show album lengths longer than one hour in the infobox? Should it be 70:00 or 1:10:00? Should it be 200:00 or 3:10:00? I have no preference, but I have gathered some statistics of current practice. In a sample of 216 albums between 60 and 100 minutes, 198 are currently formatted using the first format (hh:mm:ss) and 18 using the second (mm:ss). In a sample of 28 albums over 100 minutes 18 were formatted with using the first format and 10 using the second.

• One option is of course to never go over 60 minutes, making the first example 1:10:00. Such a policy would however cause a large portion of existing album articles to have to be changed.
• Another option is to use the second format (hh:mm:ss) if 100 minutes or more, to avoid three digit numbers.
• A third option is to always use the first format (mm:ss), because in practice the length of albums are very rarely extremely long, and in the common cases less than 100 minutes anyway.

For simplicity and to avoid changing too many pages I suggest we standardize on the third option with a wording like the following in the instructions about the length field in the infobox: Length should be in minutes and seconds, even if longer than an hour, for example 74:00. Any objections? If not, I'll make this change in a few days. --PEJL 11:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• i support entirely, actually - the first format (mm:ss) looks much tidier to these eyes, and i agree with the rationale of yr third point. tomasz. 11:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Blank CDs (and cassettes) are labelled in minutes format on their packaging, so it might be appropriate to use the mm/ss format rather than hh/mm/ss (which feels more like a format I would see in sports results or science data). Ricadus 14:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• I say that first of all, 1 and 2 are the same thing. Second of all, i say 1/2 for the simple fact that it's easier to find. Maybe it's just me, but when iTunes tells me that a cd is 1:24:06, i don't to then take the time to change it to 84:06. Violask81976 15:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

1 and 2 are not really the same thing. 1 applies a universal hh:mm:ss format, 2 goes with hh:mm:ss only for albums over 100 minutes (or 1h:40) but with mm:ss for albums <100m but >60m. tomasz. 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

So 1 would be like 0:54:06? oh, nvm. I just say number 2. Violask81976 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No, option one would be like 59:59 and 1:00:00, while option two would be like 99:59 and 1:40:00. This confusion is a good example of the simplification I mentioned in favor of option three. The fact that iTunes uses option one should be seen in light of the fact that it shows the length of a set of tracks, which may be significantly more than the tracks on one album. Other sources like MusicBrainz and CD players (at least mine) use option two/three. --PEJL 17:57, 6 May 2007

ok, now i get it. then, option 1, haha. I dunno, i just think that it looks better. Because 61:00 is 1:01:00, there aren't 61 minutes, there's 1 hour and 1 minute. I dunno. Violask81976 22:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. A majority of responders preferred option three, so I used that. --PEJL 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. -Freekee 05:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Improperly capitalized album articles

I made a list of project scope articles which are likely to be incorrectly capitalized at User:Jogers/List5. I tried to limit false positives as much as possible so it is not complete. It contains articles from Category:WikiProject Albums which have following words surrounded by spaces: is, are, our, my, it, their, For, A, An, Of, Or, And, To, At. There are also few requirements about characters before and after the space. Technically speaking I filtered out titles that didn't contain the following regular expression:

( (is|are|our|my|it|their) |[^\?\.\-:\)] (For|A|An|Of|Or|And|To|At) [^(])

If anybody is interested in clearing this up I could update this list on regular basis. I'm also pretty sure that the regex mentioned above could be improved somehow. Jogers (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you can add the following to the words that should never be capitalized under those circumstances: "From", "With", "In" and "Into". --PEJL 11:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the list, I wonder if this rule should apply if the space before the word is not preceded by another word but by a comma, ampersand, hyphen, colon, double quote or similar. I've always been unclear what the policy is for such titles. See for example 1 Polish, 2 Biscuits & A Fish Sandwich and "Wings To Fly And A Place To Be" An Introduction To Nanci Griffith and 20th Century Masters - The Millennium Collection: The Best Of L.A. Guns and A Man, A Band, A Symbol. If you want to exclude all such articles from the list, you could tweak the regexp to only match if there is a letter before the space preceding the word. --PEJL 11:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I've updated the list according to the following regex:

( (is|are|our|my|it|their) |[A-Za-z] (For|A|An|Of|Or|And|To|At|From|With|Into) [^(])

I didn't add "In" because it can function as an adverb or a particle of a phrasal verb and therefore is likely to generate false positives. Jogers (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

At least there's not a lot of them! :) Could you break it up into sections as with User:Jogers/List3?--Fisherjs 19:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. It should be easier to work on this way. Jogers (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Related thought: what about generating a list of titles that have an open parenthesis but not a closing one (or vice versa, I suppose)? What about an open parenthesis that doesn't have a space before it - like many of the Rockapella albums?--Fisherjs 19:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The second one should be quite easy. I'm not sure how to do the first one yet but I'll give it some thought. Jogers (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another improvement to the regexp to catch for example "This is: A Test", assuming your regexp engine supports "\b":

( (is|are|our|my|it|their)\b|[A-Za-z] (For|A|An|Of|Or|And|To|At|From|With|Into) [^(])

--PEJL 19:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I've updated the list. Jogers (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sets — clarification

I asked this question in general terms here (and was directed to the answer, in an earlier archive), but I'd like some clarification. Specifically, I was wondering how this would apply to Celtic music in particular — where tracks are often sets of multiple tunes (sometimes four our five of them, occasionally more), and where listing them in the manner specified in Archive 7 could easily be confusing. The long and short of it is, the nature of straight-up-and-down Celtic music (as opposed to Celtic New Age) may be a special case, and I’d like to be clear on whether or not that’s so.

I'll use Natalie MacMaster's Fit as a Fiddle as an example, since I actually have the liner notes in front of me — tracks 1 and 4, specifically, since those two would establish enough of a pattern to do the rest. You'll notice that the track/set names are pretty darn generic on this album ("Strathspeys & Reels" and "Jigs", for example). This may make it even more of a special case. Note that for clarity, I’m putting in the actual track number instead of the pound symbol (#) as I’m leaving out tracks 2 and 3.

Option 1 — see also Cherish the Ladies' The Girls Won't Leave the Boys Alone

1. "Strathspeys & Reels: John Campbell's/Miss Ann Moir's Birthday/Lady Georgina Campbell/Angus on the Turnpike/Sheehan's Reel" – 4:20

4. "Waltz: Nancy's Waltz" – 2:25

Option 2 — the same as Option 1, but with boldface for the set title

1. "Strathspeys & Reels: John Campbell's/Miss Ann Moir's Birthday/Lady Georgina Campbell/Angus on the Turnpike/Sheehan's Reel" – 4:20

4. "Waltz: Nancy's Waltz" – 2:25

Option 3 — which looks more like the example in Archive 7, but fails to make clear that the tune names are not part of the track title

1. Strathspeys & Reels: "John Campbell's"/"Miss Ann Moir's Birthday"/"Lady Georgina Campbell"/"Angus on the Turnpike"/"Sheehan's Reel" – 4:20

4. Waltz: "Nancy's Waltz" – 2:25

Option 4 — which looks more like the liner notes, and has the added bonus of allowing a low-clutter inclusion of who composed individual tunes (in this case, most of the tunes on the album are traditional: if that should be noted for each tune individually, say so, but I’m not giving you an option 5 just to cover that possibility)

1. "Strathspeys & Reels: John Campbell's/Miss Ann Moir's Birthday/Lady Georgina Campbell/Angus on the Turnpike/Sheehan's Reel" – 4:20

"John Campbell's"

"Miss Ann Moir's Birthday" (Charles Duff)

"Lady Georgina Campbell"

"Angus on the Turnpike"

"Sheehan's Reel"

4. "Waltz " – 2:25

"Nancy's Waltz" (Chris Romaine)

Basically, those are the four options that I came up with. Note that for the last one, though, the Charles Duff linked to may not be the right guy — in fact, I think it's probably somebody else entirely. Despite that, my own preference is for Option 4, if it works with the auto-numbering thing (using the '#' at the start of each track).  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a Celtic album with a (workable) variant of Option 4. Rather than reproduce it here, I'll just ask you to take a look at The Chieftains 9: Boil the Breakfast Early instead.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No bold, please. Option four seems a little inconsistent. Did you mean to exclude the text ": John Campbell's/Miss Ann Moir's Birthday/Lady Georgina Campbell/Angus on the Turnpike/Sheehan's Reel" from track one, like you did for track four? Note that The Chieftains 9: Boil the Breakfast Early uses a nested list (starts lines with '#*'), which is preferable to abusing <dt> and <dd> which is what the colons and semicolons do. Note also that we discussed medleys again recently. I'd say option one or four would be most in line with current practice (assuming you strip the text I noted from option four). --PEJL 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sophomore

Can anyone point me to where this is deprecated? I know that it is, but I've lost sight of where exactly. Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MUSTARD#Usage --PEJL 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation of albums with the same name by the same artist

The Weezer albums are used as examples at WP:ALBUM#Naming of how multiple albums with the same name by the same artist can be disambiguated by "commonly accepted convention": Weezer (The Blue Album) and Weezer (The Green Album). These albums were recently moved to Weezer (1994 album) and Weezer (2001 album), making the example no longer valid. Looking at List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums, the majority of albums listed there use the (YEAR album) disambiguation. I think we should change the policy to only support the (YEAR album) disambiguation for these albums. This will make the policy simpler, allow for less subjectivity, and be less dependent on more or less unofficial nick-names for albums. Therefore I propose we change the wording from:

For artists who release multiple albums under the same name, disambiguate by year or other commonly accepted convention, e.g. Weezer (The Blue Album) and Weezer (The Green Album).

to:

For artists who release multiple albums with the same name, disambiguate by year, e.g. Weezer (1994 album) and Weezer (2001 album).

I also removed the piped link to List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums, because that isn't really the same thing (they aren't necessarily self-titled), and I think the link to a similar but subtly different concept could confuse the interpretation. I also changed "under the same name" to "with the same name" because I think the former can be misinterpreted to refer the artist name rather than the album name. Any objections to this change? --PEJL 14:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that the examples at WP:ALBUM#Naming have now been changed to two albums with the same name by the same artist released in the same year. I assumed no such albums existed, but apparently that was a faulty assumption. Therefore I propose the following amended wording:

For artists who release multiple albums with the same name, disambiguate by year, e.g. Weezer (1994 album) and Weezer (2001 album) (unless the albums were released the same year, in which case they can be disambiguated by some commonly accepted convention).

I'll make this change in a few days unless someone objects. --PEJL 18:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What about cases where the colloquial title is very well-known? I think it is often easier for a reader to disambiguate the records by cover art, rather than year. -Freekee 05:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a specific album in mind? Any of the albums at List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums?--PEJL 08:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of the obvious ones, Weezer and Peter Gabriel. The colors and descriptive titles make sense. But the Weezer article shows the covers, and the Peter Gabriel discography describes the covers. So I guess it's not a big deal. -Freekee 15:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. As there were no strong objections, I made this change. --PEJL 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

New paragraph about track listing

Following up from above, I propose adding the following as a new paragraph at WP:ALBUM#Track listing 2, to codify existing practice:

The track listing should be under a primary heading named "Track listing". If there are significantly different track listings for different editions, these can be listed under sub-headings. If the album was released primarily on CD and spans multiple discs, these should be listed separately under sub-headings named "Disc one", "Disc two" and so on. Albums originally released primarily on vinyl or cassette should similarly list the tracks of each side separately under sub-headings named "Side one" and "Side two".

Any objections? --PEJL 20:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like instruction creep. Have we been having trouble with people doing it wrong? Edit warring or anything? -Freekee 05:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have had problems with similar sections, although I've tried to avoid edit warring. I think we should make explicit what are currently implied guidelines, that people who have been around for a while know about but that a newcomer can not easily find out about. Newcomers should be able to find out these things without looking at a rather large sample of album articles to deduce which formatting they should mimic and which they should not. For example:

• The fact that the track listing section should be called "Track listing" rather than "Tracklisting", "Track list", "Tracks" or some such. (Also see above about "Track listing" vs "Track listings".)
• The fact that sub-headings should be used rather than emulating the same using plain or bold text. This follows from WP:HEAD, but is worth mentioning here as well. I have had some problems convincing people of this.
• The fact that the disc sections should be named "Disc one" rather than "Disc 1", "CD 1" or "CD one". This was decided here, with increasing consistency since then.
• The fact that the track listing of LPs should list both sides separately. This was requested again here, and I think I recall seeing such changes reverted on some albums.

--PEJL 09:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We do need this bare minimum of instructions to ensure consistent formatting. That's not instruction creep at all, I would think. –Unint 14:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, do we use "real" headings for every variation in track listing? Different bonus tracks added to the end in different regions, for example? –Unint 17:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I do, when they are listed in a numbered list (example). I chose not to mention that in the proposed text because I think there is more room for doing it in different ways for bonus tracks. --PEJL 18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. --PEJL 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Release Dates in Infobox

I had some dispute with one of the WP:ALBUM members on how the Release Dates in the Infobox should be used. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Details states, that only the earliest known date should be used, which I think is not good out of the following reasons:

1. The infobox should provide a fast overview of the most important information. If the album was released in Timbuktu 10 days before it was released world wide, who cares?
2. That been said, I think it is important to include the release date in the country of origin because it is not always the same as the first date. For example, if I look at an article about Favourite Worst Nightmare, I'd be more interested in knowing when it was released in the UK than in Japan.
3. But of course, the first release date is important, too. I would propose to include up to three dates, together with flag-icons to the box: The first release date, the release in the country of origin and the one in the USA. I did that here, which is the reason I am writing this after all...
4. And if there are many different release dates, I'd suggest a dynamic navigation box to fit in there, which can be expanded to show all of them. See how the languages in EU are in the infobox to see what I mean. I wanted to show you with albums, too, but my template-editing-skills are not good enough (tried it here, but tables in templates fuck up the Infobox).

Ah well, that's what I wanted, to change the above guideline to make more sense and allow faster information access for the user. Also, I grow tired of having to cite WP:IAR all the time ;-)
So, what do you think? Should I be stoned (to death) for even suggesting that? ^^ --SoWhy ^Talk 19:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said. The infobox is intended to be an overview, not a comprehensive collection of information. The first release date is most important because it gives an idea of when the record was complete. The date of release in the home country is also important, because it's the band's home country. *shrug* The US release date is not all that important, in the grand scheme of things. I always like to keep the boxes simple. -Freekee 15:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Coming at this from a Video Games angle I would plead with you to stick to a single date in your infobox and place other dates in the article. If you decide on multiple dates make sure the wording on what is allowed is clear, or you may end up with something like this Donkey Kong (video game) - X201 08:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As said above, I did not suggest more than max. three dates in the box. I included the US date because it is the biggest music market of the world but I wouldn't insist on it. First and country of origin tho would be a good idea, with, as I said above, maybe the others as a dropdown, which would allow a fast overview of all dates if necessary for the user. --SoWhy ^Talk 08:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As I was the one who suggested this be discussed here, I guess I should say something. Let's start with the use of flags. The use of flags is generally controversial (see WP:FLAGCRUFT), but is especially inappropriate for the release date section. Flags draw attention, making the user notice them more than the surrounding content. The problem in this case is that this gives the country (by way of the flag) more emphasis than the date, when it should be the other way around. Many album articles (that don't use flags) list the country using smaller text, like this: January 1, 2000 (UK) for just this purpose. Using a flag is comparable to listing the country information with added emphasis, like this: January 1, 2000 (UK), which I think is inappropriate. Another problem with using flags, also stemming from the fact that they draw attention, is that since they would often be the only flags in the infobox, they give the impression that the album is closely related to the countries whose flags are shown. Take the The Boy with No Name example that was mentioned. The German flag is listed at the top, followed by the UK and US flags. If one just glances at the infobox, one can get the impression that the album has something to do with Germany, and to a lesser extent with the UK and the US, when in fact the connection to Germany is minimal. If the infobox should include flags (which I don't think it should), I think it would be better if it was for something with a stronger connection to the album, such as the origin of the artist or the location of recording. I'm still thinking about the other aspects of this proposal, so I'll leave it at that for now. --PEJL 22:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No-one in favor of flags here to rebut? Fine. The rest of the proposal was to include dates for the country of origin of the band and for the U.S., with an expandable list for other dates. The country of origin may not be obvious for all artists (solo and group) and therefore less useful in some cases. It seems inappropriate from a global perspective to make an exception for the U.S. release date, which may likewise be less relevant for certain artists. Like the Favourite Worst Nightmare example in the proposal shows, a separate section for release dates is more flexible than including all the dates collapsed in the infobox, since it can include info on different release media and labels as well. I also think it is easier for readers to interpret a single release date. (Once an album has been released somewhere in the world, it has been released in some sense.) A list of three dates for three countries may imply that the album was only released in those three countries, and may invite editors unfamiliar with the policy to add more dates for other countries. In short, I think the current policy of only including the earliest release date is preferable to this proposed policy. --PEJL 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just wanted to wait for others to say something first. Okay, first of all, I think flags should be used, they do not really draw any more attention than covers or other graphics but allow an easier overview. Then, you say that having more than one release date might confuse people. That's not more true than with only one date. If you add the earliest date in a case where the earliest and the official are very different, it will not help people. For example, what good is it to know that an album has been released January 1st in Timbuktu if everywhere else it was released March 31st? The drop-down box will allow people to access them all at once because there are very few albums like Favourite Worst Nightmare with seperate release sections and that not always necessary.

Lastly, if there is a worldwide date, there is always or you can add "(worldwide)" instead of "(UK)". --SoWhy ^Talk 19:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The only actual reason you've given for using flags is that "they allow an easier overview". I strongly dispute that using flags makes anything easier. I don't think the majority of readers of album articles will know what the flag of Mali looks like, for example. As I've already shown, there are lots of reasons against using flags in this specific context, and even more in general (see WP:FLAGCRUFT). To what extent flags draw attention is somewhat subjective. I can only speak for myself, and for me they draw attention, as do other brightly colored graphics in the middle of a block of text. The rating stars also attract attention, but less attention than flags because they are more uniform, while they contain more relevant information than flags. I don't understand what you mean about or "(worldwide)". Are you proposing it be used when there is only one release date? If so, why, what problem does it solve? My counter-proposal is that we add text saying that flags should not be used anywhere in the infobox (thus not disallowing their use in other parts of the article, such as a release info section).

If the album was released in Mali on January 1, then the album has been released on January 1. I fail to see how that wouldn't be "official". I find the current policy simple but accurate. It does simplify the release date a bit, but it avoids the problems I mentioned earlier, and doesn't actually present incorrect info. The fact that there are few albums with separate release sections is no reason to change this policy, those sections could of course be added where appropriate. If such a section isn't needed, the multiple release dates can be mentioned in the text of the article. Note that in theory I'm not opposed to including all release dates in the infobox. It's just that in practice the infobox will either become unwieldy (if all dates are shown) or misleading (if only some are shown). That's why I think the current policy is preferable. --PEJL 21:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with the first suggestion to use flags (or else, at least to use the smaller text identifying up to three countries after the date). From what I've seen on Wikipedia, very few people are aware of IAR, either. There's often more of a rush to get articles "up to code" rather than to actually improve them.

But anyway... one thing no one has taken into consideration is the virtual meaninglessness of release dates over at least the past five years, as nearly any high profile pop music release will "leak" weeks or even months early, usually in finished form. It's not like this is limited to critics or a few "music pirates". Even casual fans of a given musician will be able to get a bootleg copy with little trouble. In fact, over the past year iTunes itself has been known to "mistakenly" make high profile singles, videos and albums available on their servers weeks and months ahead of time! And then the content is quickly removed, yet continues to circulate unofficially. Is that a "release date"?

So, this hardly means release dates are no longer relevant, but it means that the automatic privileging of the first OFFICIAL release date, just because it was the first, becomes somewhat ridiculous.

Untitled

For example, I'm now working on the article for Kid A. Now this album is already 7 years old, but it's probably one of the first subject to this problem. The Internet leak preceding the album by a month is in fact considered notable as a possible impact on sales and marketing, and it's covered in the article. For such an article, it really becomes confusing for a reader (particularly a non-expert in the subject of the music industry, who would probably assume there IS only one release date if only one is listed in the box) when this album "came out". Since the discrepancy between official and leak dates is important, it doesn't seem right to leave the impression the album came out officially nearly a week earlier than it did. In fact the most COMMON (rather than the first) official release date becomes all the more important when an album is unofficially available far in advance, as this example shows. What is important, if only one date was to be singled out, is the date the critical mass of first-day buyers bought it, since most people still do legally buy music whether online or off.

It turns out that Japan has a tradition of significantly earlier release dates across the board, just as they have a tradition of adding the bonus tracks, to lure people to accept the more expensive music prices there. It's not like only albums with a special interest for the Japanese audience receive this treatment.

Yes, it bears mentioning that it was officially released first in Japan (Sept 27, 2000), and if flags were used that country would still be listed first. But it's completely arbitrary to single out Japan ONLY when it was not released anywhere else until October 2, 2000- and "anywhere else" being the entire rest of the world (except US and Canada which was the very next day). True, putting a lot of dates in the infobox can look very messy. But with restrained use of the flag icons, provided the album doesn't have too many separate release dates, you actually make the whole article less misleading, and simpler to understand, as well as achieving a cleaner look.

To the right is an example of what the rule currently prevents us from doing on Kid A. Covers all the release dates with a minimum of space, and mouse-over reveals the country if someone is not familiar with a flag.

Also, the infobox at the right kind of demolishes the claim that "The first release date is most important because it gives an idea of when the record was complete." Not this decade! The record was complete five months before the first release date. When you factor in time to do marketing and videos (which this album supposedly didn't even have), it's true of a lot of albums out there now that a slightly earlier release date still gives no clearer picture when the music itself was finished. I do agree w/ User:Freekee that at the very least the home country release date should ALWAYS be listed in the infobox, unless the release didn't focus on the market in their home country. That was clearly not the case with the given examples of Radiohead, Travis, Arctic Monkeys, etc., whose main market is all the UK. Japan or Germany simply got in a bit earlier due to a technicality. 172.135.131.176 13:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

One other thing, will people refrain from "enforcing" rules about which there isn't even any consensus yet? (Especially ones where it's unlikely doing it one way or the other will really "hurt" anyone as images of Muhammad might?) Until the debate on THIS page is resolved, editors on any page can do WHATEVER THEY FEEL IS BEST regarding this issue! 172.135.131.176 13:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In terms of arguments in favor of using flags, I think I can extract "achieving a cleaner look" from that. So the arguments in favor of flags presented so far are: "they allow an easier overview" and "achieving a cleaner look". I dispute both claims for roughly the same reasons, and hold that both arguments are subjective. I think the arguments against using flags outweigh these arguments. I think including the country name using small text instead gives the relative pieces of information appropriate emphasis.

It's also unclear what your position is, because your example uses more than three flags. Are you proposing a different rule than the OP? If not, which flags are you saying would be included in this case? The Japanese, world and U.S. flags? If so, this misrepresents the release date in Canada. What does the world flag mean exactly? (All other countries? Most other countries?) Textual labels can be clearer, for example "(elsewhere)" and "(most countries)" while being more flexible, for example "(North America)". --PEJL 14:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well ok, (<small></small>) text labels are a very good idea if flags are out. The problem is that currently there is a "rule" banning any more than one release date from being in that box- with a flag, with a text label, with whatever. It's a "rule" about which there is hardly any agreement here, thus I would say quite a stupid one for its supporters to enforce at this point. My argument was that using only one release date is misleading and arbitrary in many cases, ESPECIALLY if one is not even allowed to identify that one date with a flag or text label. I do like the look of flags in moderation, but I see your point- it can get out of hand with albums that have many different release dates. But for that matter, is there any reason to have one single rule for all albums, past, present, aimed at one country or aimed at the international pop market? This is the problem with "rules" and why we need to ignore them sometimes, lest a bureaucracy be created that pointlessly forces articles to adhere to a central standard that distorts the coverage of their specific topic. 172.146.45.46 06:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, there is a rule, and we are discussing changing that rule based on the proposal at the top of this thread. You say that using a single release date is misleading and arbitrary. I say that using a subset of release dates with country identifiers may also be misleading and arbitrary. I think both arguments have merit, and neither solution is optimal. I do think we should try to make a rule that will work well for all album articles, and not give up or allow for deviation unless a concrete reason for doing so is identified. Just ignoring this rule (whether the existing rule or a changed rule) doesn't solve any problems, it just escalates them, by moving the conflict onto potentially each and every album article. One of the problems with this proposed new rule is that it is somewhat complex, while still being under-defined. The following is an attempt at defining the "Released" field per the proposed new rule (using textual labels instead of flags):

Untitled

Should refer to the date of release. If an album is released on different dates in different countries, more than one date should sometimes be shown, as described below. When an album is released on different dates in different countries, a label should always be included after the date, inside a <small>...</small> block and inside parentheses, specifying the country the date refers to. The date of the first release should always be shown. If the album was also released in the artist's country of origin, that date should also be shown, if different. If the album was also released in the U.S., that date should also be shown, if different. The dates should be sorted in ascending order.

This rule is under-defined because it leaves undefined how to handle cases when more than one country has the same release date. (Should it be (UK) or (UK, Brazil, France, Belgium)?) As I've mentioned before, it also misrepresents the release date when more than three release dates exist, or when the second or third release dates aren't shown because they aren't from the country of origin or the U.S.. It was suggested that an expandable list be used to alleviate this problem. Using an expandable list only partially alleviates the problem, and has problems of its own. Singling out the U.S. date is also dubious, as previously noted. This rule is also not very obvious to a random editor who hasn't read these instructions. This proposed rule can be contrasted to the current rule, which is significantly simpler:

Untitled

Should refer to the earliest known date.

An alternate proposal

I have made an alternate proposal which tries to leave fewer cases undefined while allowing all release dates to be included using a relatively compact presentation. This rule is roughly equally as complex as the other proposed rule, but is in my opinion less misleading because it includes all dates and all regions.

Untitled

Should refer to the date of release. If an album is released on different dates in different regions, all such dates should be included. When multiple dates are shown, the regions the date refers to should be included after the date, using the {{Album regions}} template. The regions may be the name of countries or continents, or a short description such as "most countries", "everywhere else" or "most of Europe", for example: {{Album regions|North America|Israel}}. The dates should be sorted in ascending order, and regions should be sorted by population in descending order.

This rule uses a proposed new template {{Album regions}} which converts a list of regions into small text in parentheses, and hides secondary regions, by showing only the first region followed by an ellipsis, while all regions are shown as a tooltip. For example: {{Album regions|Australia}} would output <small>(Australia)</small> while {{Album regions|Germany|Spain|Ireland}} would output <small title="Germany, Spain, Ireland">(Germany, …)</small>. --PEJL 22:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To avoid the number of release dates in the infobox growing too large, I propose limiting it to original releases, excluding re-releases, per some definition of a re-release. One possible such definition could be:

Only the date of the original release in a region should be included, thus excluding possible re-releases in the same region.

--PEJL 10:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ping. It would be great if we could resolve this issue. What do people think about my alternate proposal? --PEJL 13:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So much burden placed on this one box... There are times when I think we're really encouraging people to forget the purpose of condensing information in a concise manner.

I personally like the approach taken at articles like Fundamental (Pet Shop Boys album) and X&Y, where the full selection of release dates are tabulated in a later section. –Unint 01:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically our current guideline (except that those infoboxes don't show the earliest release date), and what I was arguing we should keep doing earlier in this thread. This alternate proposal was just an alternative to the proposal at the top of this thread, iff we decided we wanted the infobox to include multiple release dates. Since this discussion has died down, I think we can conclude that our current guideline will stay for now. --PEJL 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

When I look at an INFOBOX it would be nice to get a "quick snapshot" of the album and band with an "Official" release date that the industry (record company) had set. That gives everyone a general point of reference when that album came out...like "hey, remember 'Shout at the Devil'?, when did that come out?" "Uh, like 1983 man"... Not "Well, it was initially released as a demo in july of 1982 in Japan, then later that year, part of a 2-disk compilation album 'Buckle-Up Razzle'(sorry bad humor)in Germany, then officially released in the US in 1983, but don't forget the pre-leaching and stolen songs (including the ones that were ripped off from the thief that stole them, that were officially-unofficially released on the internet (that you could only exclusively use at Al Gore's house(back in 83'))".

I do agree that the flags make the article look stunning, but I live in the US, not Japan, and could care less about a specific release in another country unless there is an asterisk next to it indicating the worlds collapse because of it. Besides, doesn't "Uh, like 1983 man" seem a much simpler response?

Boxes would be fine as long as they revert to a general concensus date... like an official one. But, if I'm that interested in the article, i'll read it, including ALL the release dates in every city in every country in every world.

Just my P's & Q's --ZapperZippy 00:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)ZapperZippy

britpop needs clean-up

People seem to be tagging all and anything by a british article as "britpop" - the cat needs cleanup. --Fredrick day 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

RIAA certifications given to music albums

Should RIAA certifications given to music albums be capitalized on pages like discographies? Some editors do capitalize (see Earth, Wind & Fire discography, Audioslave discography) and some (I actually know only one) don't (see Britney Spears discography, Eminem discography). I need opinion of at least two experienced wikipedians, thanks! Daniil Maslyuk 13:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking whether the word "certification" should be capitalized in RIAA certification? No, I don't think it does. RIAA is the name of an organization, but "certification" is a descriptor. -Freekee 03:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps words like "gold", "platinum", etc. The RIAA certification article itself capitalizes these awards. –Unint 04:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I meant words like "gold" and "platinum". Daniil Maslyuk 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Final albums

There is a current debate regarding the fate of the "final albums" category. Those that wish to do so might weigh in. I'm not adovocating a position nor do I have a strong opinion. I just find it hard to keep up with category debates until they are already being deleted. -MrFizyx 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware this category existed, probably because the existence of categories like this has been a bit of a mystery to me. WP:ALBUM#Categories just mentions Category:ARTIST albums and Category:YEAR albums. I've just now found that Category:Albums (linked via Category:Final albums) contains a list of various album categories. It seems at least some of those categories are automatically added to articles when appropriate. I think we should update WP:ALBUM#Categories to mention Category:Albums and/or list some or all of the categories listed there that album articles should manually use. --PEJL 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Category:Eponymous albums that was mentioned here back in April and was noted to be deleted, now seems to be back. --PEJL 15:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Do compilation albums require personnel sections to avoid being stubs?

WP:ALBUM#Assessment_classes "Start" implies that an album article must be declared a stub unless it has several things, one of which is "• A minimal list of credits (band members, at least)". Does this hold true for compilation albums as well? Since such albums frequently span considerable time, giving even a minimal list of credits and properly stating who belongs to which song can be very awkward. And what about for solo artists? Backing musicians for tracks on a compilation can typically each be different; listing all of them would be quite unwieldy. Wasted Time R 13:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good chance to ignore all rules. -MrFizyx 03:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much effort into it. Of course, I wouldn't put too much effort into comp album articles in general, but I guess that's beside the point. If it's not too tough, a basic listing would be good. I wouldn't go into detail about who played on which tracks, but a mention of all the band members who played on the record, and maybe the producers, would be a good thing. Guests players are not necessary, but significant appearances might be listed in the text. Use your judgement. -Freekee 03:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should make sure the rules are optimal before starting to ignore them. Specifically, perhaps the requirements for different assessment classes should be loosened for compilation albums, or possibly only the requirements for start status should be. I don't know (and I don't feel qualified to answer that since I don't assess many articles). On the other hand, what is the harm in keeping these compilation albums at stub status? --PEJL 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think keeping a minimal personnel list satisfies the assessment requirements without the need to change them for compilations or hold comps back. Besides, some studio albums have very basic personnel lists and still make Start class. -Freekee 03:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How about box sets like The Beatles Box Set, should we have exceptions for those? This criteria means that article should be stub class, but it's currently assessed as B class. --PEJL 00:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

More fair use images being tagged

It seems more fair use album art is being tagged. I gather that pretty much anything uploaded within the past year can be tagged, removed from articles and eventually deleted unless the image includes its own unique argument for fair use. Perhaps someone could make a bot to generate random explanations for why showing album covers on album articles is O.K. -MrFizyx 02:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm having an absurd discussion with someone at the Talk:The_Original_Soundtrack page on this subject. At least I think I am. It all seems so simple to me: Wikipedia allows an album article to contain an image of the cover. This editor seems intent on deleting the image. What the hell is going on?Grimhim 04:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I made an edit to this page that I hope helps, but I am afraid it will not. Furthermore, the image needs a source, so it may be deleted under that criteria. Good luck. (Sampm 06:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the Fair Use Rationale you've added. I've just done a random search of well-known albums -- Rubber Soul, Between the Buttons and Presence -- and found none have this section attached to the image. Abbey Road (album), which appears on numerous Wiki articles, does, however.

I also note that the Project Albums page does advise including a Fair Use Rationale comment, though I've added album cover art to many album entries, without ever including a Fair Use notation and never had them deleted. I guess I should do so in future. I'd have thought the licensing tag would be sufficient; is someone working their way through every album in Wiki trying to delete images without a Fair Use comment? I take your point on the lack of a source for the Original Soundtrack cover art; if it is deleted I'll find a new cover and stick it in. Grimhim 06:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are. Our current use of images puts us in danger. Note that they are *only* fair use in the album article, not the graphical discographies that seem to have sprung up. They all need removing. Secretlondon 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we need that bot proposed above! Wasted Time R 14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Help:Image page states in the section WP:IDP#Fair use rationale that when you upload a fair use image, "you must include two things on the image description page: (1) An appropriate fair use license tag & (2) A detailed fair use rationale." -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we know that. The point is that the "detailed fair use rationale" is always going to be the same for album articles. Why can't it be incorporated into the album cover license tag? The requirement just creates pointless busy work. Wasted Time R 19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, to me, the solution to this seems simple. I'm sure that we can colaborate and create a universal fair use rationale for all album covers. Something like:

1. This image is already displayed in record stores worldwide.
2. The use of this image is used by the copyright holder to promote the album it is included with, therefore;
3. The use of this image on Wikipedia does not infringe on the rights of the copyright holder, or the copyright holder's ability to use the image, and;
4. The use of this image on Wikipedia does not inflict losses in revenue for the copright holder.

What if we got a bot to go through all album covers without fair use rationales and use that? That would take care of that SNAFU.
As for sources, that may be a little more difficult, but I'm sure some dedicated Wikipedians could be recruited to find the links to general libraries such as the All Music Guide, Amazon.com etc. -- Reaper X 20:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• sounds excellent. i'd be more'n happy to help finding sources. tomasz. 21:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe such bot would be approved. -- ReyBrujo 22:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, the major problem... they won't accept any automatically generated rationale. –Unint 03:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on starting a new wiki just for music, and we can not have all these fair-use problems over such trivial matters as album art. If anyone wants to help me, here's the link. I know it's on a wiki farm..but i dunno how to/don't have the money to staart one using the mediawiki program. I need help, mainly with making templates. I dunno how... Violask81976 03:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are still covered by copyright law, whether you like it or not. Secretlondon 04:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dodge copyright law. There's a difference between complying with it, which we are, and making you type out a detailed thing for every single once like the deletionists who happen to have power are wanting us to do. Violask81976 15:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't use fair use images without a detailed rationale. I've added some to articles I care about. I suggest you do likewise. If an image is deleted it can always been replaced. We just can't take images from wherever without justifying it. This has been long overdue. Secretlondon 04:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd be more than happy if we could get the fair use rationale part taken care of for now here on wikipedia. Do you think someone could employ a bot to take care of this? Do you think we canm come to a concensus on what this universial rational should be? -- Reaper X 06:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The legal definition of "Fair Use" is to depict something's subject matter where no free alternative is available. Now, why based on that description, are discographies with images considered illegal? It's illogical to assume that an image cannot be used to illustrate a point. Anyway, as to tagging with a standard FU tag, I agree, but I'd have it in fitting with the {{Non-free media rationale}} template, rather than the proposed rationale. --linca^linca 10:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there's no way for a bot to go through and add rationales for all of these images (some, maybe). One requirement is that the cover must be of low resolution; many of the covers on Wikipedia are not of sufficiently low resolution. ShadowHalo 17:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia's own Fair use criteria is, on purpose, stricter than the law, to prevent falling in the law's gray area. In example, if there were a law stating "Internet pages can have up to 32,000 characters", Wikipedia would only allow, say, 24,000 bytes, ensuring they are well within law (completely fake example to demonstrate why we don't use the law's wording for fair use, must clarify because it had already happened that someone really thought there was such a law!). -- ReyBrujo 18:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The person responsible for the majority of the automated tagging has indicated this is the kind of rationale he would like to see on each album cover page:

Rationale for this image:

• The cover is used to represent a well known and acclaimed album
• This image has been used in several websites, and so use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is
• The image is being used in an informative way and should not detract from the album
• The image does not limit the group's ability to sell the album
• The only purpose of the image is to help decribe the album (NAME OF ALBUM) and no other purpose

Why the Template:Non-free album cover couldn't have that added to it, I have no idea. I'll propose that on the template talk page. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So the discussion there, just as an update, is going south for hard-coding a FU rationale into the template, but ReyBrujo said if he could have it his way he would have "a textbox in the Special:Upload page for the rationale, and stop uploading any image until you have write a fair use rationale". It sounds like an excellent idea to me . I mean, it makes things so much easier for those less experienced Wikipedians trying to contribute. I mean, one fine example of providing an uploader with help at the Special:Upload page is at Wikipedia Commons. When you go to upload a file, you come to the following page:

Where is the work from? (Click on the appropriate link) It is entirely my own work It is from Flickr It is from another Wikimedia project (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikinews, etc) It is from a US federal government source It is from somewhere else I don't know who the author is, or I don't know what license applies I need help figuring out what the license is

Now because I copied and pasted this from another project, some of the links dont work as they are supposed to, but you get the idea. If you have a commons account, I highly encourage you to visit and look at the helpful pages that follow, if you havent already. I wasn't aware this existed until a few days ago when I uploaded a few Flickr photos for a couple articles I was working on. Clicking on that link for Flickr photos made it so much easier, and ensured it was done properly. I found this to be quite an awesome and useful piece of work. I think we need to find the editor(s) behind this, and make the Wikipedia upload page more obvious like this. While we are at it, we can include the tools to help an editor add fair use rationales to any kind of image, including album covers. So I posed this suggestion at Template talk:Non-free album cover already, and if the feedback is good enough, we should send it up the chain. What do you guys think? -- Reaper X 23:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, my initial suggestion that a bot could be used for this was in jest, I never thought such a thing could fly, but thanks to those who have tried to promote the idea. There seems to be a real problem now though. The hard-core deletionists seem to insist that getting rationales created or images deleted is suddenly an urgent matter. Further, the bot operator seems to ignore most attempts to have a dialog about the matter.

Wikipedia has many maintenance tags that don't involve speedy deletion one not create one to address this problem? Clearly, people have continued to upload articles without rationales, because there have been many untagged examples to follow without them. Why use a bot threaten mass deletions of reasonably used images that have existed for up to a year? Why is this being made into our highest priority overnight? -MrFizyx 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of album covers in discographies

Further up, Secretlondon writes: "[Album images] are *only* fair use in the album article, not the graphical discographies that seem to have sprung up. They all need removing".

I'm not sure this is correct. Consider eg Image:Beatles - Abbey Road.jpg which includes fair use rationales for various pages including The Beatles discography.

It seems to me the use of the image on that page falls squarely within WP's fair use thinking: it is a thumbnail, it is not replaceable, it is being used to illustrate the product in question, it does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work; and its use, in a review of the band's whole output, is for an appropriately transformative purpose. Jheald 11:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, don't you just need a separate FU rationale? -- Reaper X 17:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Some articles have it and some don't. The ones I come across that do, well, let's just say that I could really get used to it... It doesn't detract *at all* from the page as a matter of fact, it enhances the article. Granted, a few more pecks on the keyboard to make your dreams come true, but, most album covers will match the link reference and it's nice to be able to do a quick visual double check before you click on the link. You may even pick up that the album cover is not at all what it is supposed to be and away you go on your Wiki editing vacation(no miles needed off your Visa).

When I go back to boring old album articles with plain old links... Whoopedy Doo!(sarcastic remark) I sink into a depressive funk tailspin that only a rootbeer float ice cream bar can pull me out of. Besides, if the cover is provacative, that will only get you interested in exploring the (hopefully) intriguing article!?!? Humph, You mean we should actually explore this encyclopedia? (another sarcastic remark from [|Jerk])--ZapperZippy 00:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would cite Ozzy Osbourne discography as a visually appealling page that has thumbs which are hard to use as a visual identifier of the album unless you squint. Once you find your entry, if your familiar with the album cover, then you might notice the similarities. This a great start, IMO. I like the box style and such, I've seen so many different styles it's hard to say which ones are the most ergonomic. All in all, it breaks up the monotony of endless text on a page that has you trying to slit your wrists half way down...Kinda' like here Kiss discography and if memory serves me correct, if I try to look for something in what appears to be gobbledy gook computer code?, I'll lose interest real quick...so might others--ZapperZippy 23:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kid A

The article is an FA candidate. Please could anyone with some spare time have a look at it. Thanks - Alex valavanis 09:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We made it! Congratulations to everyone who contributed :D - Alex valavanis 09:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work! Jogers (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Versions/Remixes

Is there any consensus on how they are to be written in the track listing? -- Chsf 10:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the tracks are listed on the album as:

1. track name (foomix remix)
2. track name (alternate version)

or similar, I think the most common way (at least in terms of quoting) is like this:

1. "Track Name" (Foomix remix) – 1:23
2. "Track Name" (alternate version) – 2:34

In some cases the tracks are listed like this:

1. "Track Name (Foomix Remix)" – 1:23
2. "Track Name (Alternate Version)" – 2:34

I prefer the former method, partly because it is more common, and partly because it's seems appropriate to treat only the base track name as the title of the track, and treat the rest similar to songwriters. (Note that the capitalization should differ accordingly.) --PEJL 17:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for shedding some light on the matter, I found it most helpful -- Chsf 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Professional review sources

I think we should clarify what constitutes a professional review to the extent that it can be included in the infobox. It seems to me that what we really mean by a professional review is a review from a professional review source. If this is indeed the case, I think we should actually mention this in the guideline. I also think it would be good if we as a project made some decisions on which review sources are to be considered professional and which are not, to avoid having to decide this for every album article. For example by making one list of review sources that we consider to be professional (Rolling Stone, Pitchfork Media, ...), and possibly one list of major review sources which we do not consider to be professional but are sometimes incorrectly included anyway (Amazon.com, Metacritic, ...), with explanations why not. Inclusion of reviews from review sources on neither list would be at the discretion of the editor, like it is now. We currently have a section WP:ALBUM#Review sites which includes links to some items from the first list mixed with links to meta-sites such as Metacritic and Buy.com which only link to reviews elsewhere. We could add these lists there, reusing that list for the first list and moving Metacritic and Buy.com to a separate list of meta-sites. I have some statistics on review sources for a subset of about 1400 album articles, from which I could generate a list of the most common review sources, as a basis for these lists. Opinions? --PEJL 21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made some lists, proposing some review sources for the list of professional review sources and some for the list of non-professional review sources, trying to only pick non-controversial choices. See User:PEJL/Review sources. Comments on the concept of maintaining such lists, or on specific review sources most welcome. --PEJL 22:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I do question the inclusion of just any random website with lots of reviews. On the other hand... what credentials count in the music world? (Other than "being a music magazine", though you talk to a lot of people these days and they'll say that the websites have surpassed print in some way. And, of course, websites may or may not be run by people coming from print. Meanwhile, Option was a glossy, but it used many reviewers who were not professional by contemporaneous standards.) –Unint 01:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As a first step, I've added the list of review sources from which reviews are not considered professional. See WP:ALBUM#Review sites. I encourage others to audit this list. --PEJL 20:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with your current list, I don't feel that an "official list" is needed. Citing a review should be much like citing any other source, therefore, WP:RS should cover it. There will always be good review sources that we haven't considered. Many are genre specific.

As one who writes about folk music, I tend to favor the coverage in sources like Sing Out!, Dirty Linen, No Depression, and Folkwax. These are well established, credible, independent publications with seasoned writers/editors, but I don't expect other editors to have heard of them. On the other hand, while I like reading "Songs:Illinois", and think there is some excellent writing in the reviews on Fish Records, I don't include these as reviews. The former is hosted by Blogger, and the later is a primary distributor in the UK for the music it reveiws. I trust editors of articles on hip-hop, death metal, or space music to know where their lines are for reliable and independent sources using WP:RS as a guide rather than a list. Are there really that many disputes? -MrFizyx 18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, my main motivation for the list of "good" sources were the disputes about Robert Christgau, and trying to explain in various places to someone who's never heard of him before why including one-line reviews by him was appropriate, and an occasional dispute about Pitchfork Media. Another motivation was to standardize the naming of the review sources. For example, I've renamed "Dot Music" to "Yahoo! Music" on many album articles because I feel the latter is more accurate in this context. I thought it would be useful to have a central repository of canonical review source names. Given the limited feedback I've received, I no longer think including a list of "all" good review sources is feasible, mainly because of the length of such a list. Perhaps we should just mention somewhere those review sources that are "good" but often disputed. I'd like to rewrite the section on professional reviews. Can we agree that what we mean by a professional review is a review from a professional review source? --PEJL 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... you're trying to draw a line through what is a gray area for me. There are well-organized, professional quality sources without a paid staff. I frequently do like to include (sorry more "folk" examples) reviews from the Folk and Acoustic Music Exchange (a project of the Peterborough Folk Music Society non-profit), George Graham's Weekly Album Reviews (written by a public radio host), and a number of web zines (with editors and multiple regular writers). These may or may not fit someone elses definition of professional. (BTW here is my sub-page for searching these if you're curious)

How does this sound: "Professional reviews may include reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having an editorial and writing staff (paid or volunteer). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc." This seems a bit wordy to me, but would include an indpendent web site for a seasoned pro like Christgau, but suggest some threshold for random web-zines/bloggers.

Occassionally someone suggests we should only include reviews from notable sources (i.e. that the souces themselves meet criteria for an article). I have always argued strongly against that. -MrFizyx 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant professional in the level-of-quality sense, not in the as-a-profession sense. Rephrasing, can we agree that what we mean by a professional review is any review from a review source that produces professional reviews? The point being that the distinction is at the level of the review source, not at the level of the review. I can see potential problems with such a guideline (bad reviews from good sources), but it makes for a simpler and less subjective guideline. I could be wrong, but I believe we mostly adhere to this rule as it is. Your wording also (mostly) supports this, AFAICT. If we agree on that, I think we may want to make it more explicit in the guideline. (That would explicitly make all of Christgau's reviews acceptable, no matter how brief.) I like your wording, but worry that that the threshold for personal blogs can be interpreted to be low or non-existant. --PEJL 21:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we pretty much agree on what the standard should be (at least we know it when we see it). If you can come up with better wording give it a try. I think we want to avoid anything circular (like your second sentance above). I also considered simply saying, "professional quality reveiws", but that leaves too much up to interpretation (someone thinks Xgau's "dud" is unprofessional and removes it). I don't think blogs pass WP:RS, blogs are also why I added the bit about having a staff. -MrFizyx 22:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't come up with anything much better than your text, just some tweaks to it. Perhaps we can change "may include" to "may include only" in the first sentence, to clarify that reviews from other sources should not be included. That could be problematic if the list isn't inclusive enough, but I think it is. We might also want to add ", which excludes personal blogs" to the end of that sentence, to make that very clear (even if it is covered by other criteria), since I suspect that will be the most common violation of this guideline. --PEJL 23:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. (I apologize for editing an archive page, but I felt this was useful to mention here.) --PEJL 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of Step (album)

I am not sure if this article is well resourced, or if it is very notable. Maybe it should be deleted? Kris 22:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I added {{Unreferencedarticle}} to it. --PEJL 12:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? Out of Step is one of the most influential hardcore albums of all time. There are plenty of sources if you care to take the time to find them. And might I suggest reading up on criteria for deletion while you are at it? Not being well sourced is not one of them. Thanks. – B.hotep ^u/_t• 20:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)