Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Instrumentals vs songs

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Instrumentals vs songs, where I have raised some concerns about discrepancies in the way we deal with articles about instrumental recordings. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick Capitalisation Question!

Heya. I'm working on WikiProject Eurovision and a few colleagues and I were wondering, is it right that on the English Wikipedia that all song titles should be capitalised. On the Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 page we have "Upp o hoppa" and then translated as "Get Up and Jump". Surely because this is an English language Wikipedia then it should read "Upp o Hoppa" ("o" is short for "och" which means "and") and then "Get Up and Jump". Please get back to me on this asap. Many of us wish to use capitals throughout our Project for titles of songs. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 16:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally we respect the capitalization standard from whatever language it is. For example, the French song "Ne me quitte pas" (not "New Me Quite Pas"). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You can check at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that songs in French, Swedish, Spanish, etc. should be in lower case? ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 18:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ignore that - I've read that bit now. Thanks for that! ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 18:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What about titles that have been transliterated from a different alphabet? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. The section doesn't mention that, so I assume this hasn't been brought up before. I would say that we use whatever is common in English sources first. This is only useful if the transliterated title is actually found in English print media. If no English sources are available (for example, an obscure Russian album that en editor simply translated from the Russian Wikipedia), then we default to the capitalization of that language. Does that sound reasonable? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So all song titles that are not in English should be lower case other than the first letter because they are like that in their language. :)

I get it finally. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 08:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well not all, just the ones that would usually do that in their language I assume. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You can check out Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_26#Foreign_language_capitalization to understand why we decided to respect the capitalization rules of the original language. The examples also show that this does not always mean to use lower case in all words except the first. In German, for example, it does not work like that. – IbLeo (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[sic] in song titles

Whether or not a misspelled song title is intentional or not, should [sic] appear in a song title, or even in the track listing? Pasta of Muppets (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Intentional misspelling is frequent in rock and rap song titles, and it is the proper name. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Song titles are considered proper nouns, I believe, and so [sic] is not needed. It's really only for quotes. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Example of this is The Dutchess, although its an album. --Efe (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See sic. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[sic] is used to indicate that an odd spelling is not a typo. I see nothing wrong with using it as per The Dutchess as demonstrated above, and it's often seen used that way in print media. But I would agree it's probably not appropriate in rap music articles, where odd spellings are understood to be the norm. At Wikipedia, we should use the {{sic}} template which adds the square brackets and wikilinks the term. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

So if someone's name was Traci instead of Tracey you would use [sic]? I don't think so. As stated above, proper nouns don't need this. --JD554 (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that example would not call for a [sic], but it's not a good example for deciding upon a general rule. There are other song title examples that could be mistaken as containing a typo. A statement was made earlier, "song titles are considered proper nouns", however we are not talking about real proper nouns, but rather song titles, and a suggestion that they should have the same rules as proper nouns, even though they are something different. Maybe, instead of coming up with hypothetical examples, we should ask the original poster if he has an actual case that is being considered, and we could make a judgement call on that. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Song titles are considered proper nouns because they are proper nouns. Compare proper noun with common noun: a song title is an "individual entity" and you wouldn't prefix it with "the", "a/an", etc. --JD554 (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We already put song titles in quotes, so adding [sic] would just be redundant. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 12:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

scaruffi as good critic

sorry but this man is NOT professional, i mean:

-The problem I have with this Scaruffi fellow is that while it's one thing to say you don't like a band like the Beatles, it's quite another to say that they're unoriginal, musically insignificant, essentially a 60s boy band, etc. These are objective statements that simply fail with any real knowledge of musicology. -Basically, it comes down to this - if you want to make the claim that the Beatles were a musically insignificant band, you need to claim that you know more about music theory than Leonard Bernstein and Aaron Copland. -And that's a tall task given that Scaruffi seems to lack any serious training in music (as, it seems, in most areas he writes about. -The guy doesn't get published in any music magazines or papers so why should his reviews be considered professional? His writings are also clearly biased against popular music, regardless of how well researched they are. -Music is not a science, you cannot approach it as one. -The best critics approach their subjects from all angles, he only approaches it from one. All negative, no positive.

so by no meanings is this man a professional. and i hope you will delete him from the list of good critics and shut down his ratings of bands(he don't even reviews albums, just bands) of the albums (or bands) he rated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.224.230 (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take it upon yourself to move him from the approved to the unapproved list without consensus for this change. I take it the above is intended to be the start of a move to change consensus. --Rodhullandemu 21:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

sorry for taking him out of the list, but i hope in the next few days or weeks you talk a bit about him and take him out. he also is seems not to remembering his older reviews, in his beatles review he describes sgt pepper as a piece they stole from other artists with all the stuff they did, especially pet sounds that is one of the best albums in his opinion, so he gives sgt pepper 7 of 10 stars, and in the beach boys article he gives pet sounds also only 7 of 10 stars, but in the beatles review he talks about how superior pet sounds is in his opinion, so why did they have the same rating? he must have forgot his serenade of hate against the beatles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.47.158 (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As there appears (from a search of the site) to be a number of discussions now and in the past about Piero Scaruffi being included as an accepted review source, I think that a call for some sort of organized discussion and consensus on the subject should take place. Personally, I don't consider a mostly self-published author's web site to be a notable expert source. I'd like to see the use of his site abandoned, as there are other, better sources available. KieferFL (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

These discussions generally favor Scaruffi because he reviews obscure albums that are not covered in major media. His consistency doesn't tell us anything about how relevant of a music critic he is. Since his value is that he reviews obscure albums, perhaps we should only use his reviews in articles if there is otherwise only a small number of reviews (e.g. one or fewer) already? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If his main usefulness is because he sometimes reviews albums that others do not, then perhaps his removal from the list is a good thing. Of course, if his review of an album is the only one, then an editor would out of necessity need to link to his review, but for more mainstream offerings there are still better, more experienced & respected reviewers. KieferFL (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

now that's an idea, but please let his unprofessional reviews not on the loose on musical greats like the beatles(he MUST hate them, because he turns everything the beatles did to bad) and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.240.137 (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he likes or dislikes a band. In fact, it is imperative to include unfavorable criticism in articles about albums that are widely praised, otherwise readers may get the impression that the album was loved by every critic. This could be seen as an application of WP:Neutral point of view. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Imperative" to include unfavorable criticism? I'm not sure I follow that. A representative sample is good, but it almost sounds as though an unfavorable critique should be linked to even if a large majority of critics have high praise for a work. If the review selection isn't representative of the majority, then it is misleading. If 90% of the critics loved a work, 9% thought it was average, and 1% thought it was horrible, then should that 1% be included? That appears non-neutral, I think. KieferFL (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been wanting to comment on his merit as a notable reviewer for a while. I haven't seen anything that indicates he is a notable figure in music criticism. There's a slew of critics I'd name that are far more notable than him; to list a few: Lester Bangs, Robert Christgau, Jon Savage, Simon Reynolds. The reason these guys are notable is because they have established themselves as major critical voices in major music publications such as Creem, Village Voice, NME, and Melody Maker. Scaruffi's reviews are essentially hosted on a personal website, and there's no evidence his reviews have any critical impact. This New York Times article does a decent job of establishing his notability as a topic for Wikipedia, but it doesn't establish his notability as a music critic, especially one we'd want to rely on as much as reviews coming from major publications like . . . The New York Times. And really, I've yet to come upon an album that only he reviewed; there's tons of websites and a good selection of magazines that review underground music. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that he's borderline at best; however, he does seem to have some cache as a music journalist. For instance, he is cited for his overview of rhythm & blues in Music of the World War II Era, a 2007 book published under the Greenwood Publishing Group, an imprint of Houghton Mifflin. (See [1]). Under WP:RS, it notes that the authors of reliable source publications "are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." One book ref doesn't establish a "generally", but I think we need to think about it carefully before removing him altogether as a possible resource. Perhaps he should not be listed on our Wikipedia:ALBUM#Review_sites, which after all only indicates "some websites with reviews or links to reviews that you can use in album infoboxes" (emphasis added), but I don't believe he should be listed under "non-professional reviews" either, as I don't think it's true that "[a]s a matter of policy, reviews from" his site "are not considered professional, and should not be included in album infoboxes" (emphasis added :)). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The question that I would have about his work with Music of the World War II Era would be whether he was working as a "cultural historian", examining how the genre of R&B affected the culture of the era or whether he was working specifically with critiquing the music itself. I look at the two very differently. "How did the music affect history", which he's apparently qualified as a cultural historian to address, vs. "Is the music any good", which I would like to see answered by someone with musical expertise or at least in a more music-based forum, such as the people linked to by WesleyDodds above. KieferFL (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. But it certainly does tap into the larger philosophical issue of whether there is actually anybody qualified to address whether or not music is any good. :) That aside, I had never heard of Scaruffi before finding him here; he has been valuable to me in some more obscure (and yet evidently "important" albums). A quick check shows he was added to the list here. I don't see any sign that the addition was discussed at the album talk page. I'm not sure how it was decided that he qualified in the first place. As I said, I think he's borderline on this one: "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." He doesn't seem to meet this one: "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." His books are all self-published, and his website is supported by his occasional returns to his professional training as a mathematician (see NY Times). I still maintain that's usable, but I would support removing him from from the infobox. If we list him under "non-professional reviews", though, I think we may need to make clear that he may be usable within the article body in some contexts, according to WP:RS, though not in infobox. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You've just brought up something very important: he's not a professional reviewer. He's a mathematician who self-publishes music books and posts reviews on his website. His occupation is not "music critic" so we can't treat him as one. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why I agree we should delist him. We seem to have consensus for that. Anyone disagree? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the English language reviews are fan-submitted translations of his original work in Italian. Note the "If English is your first language and you could translate this text, please contact me." here. So yeah, Scaruffi is completely inappropriate as a source. As for underground music albums that no other publication covers, well, they shouldn't have their own Wikipedia articles should they? indopug (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Who suggested that albums that aren't covered by any publication would have an article? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Greetings All - WesleyDodds's "I've been wanting to comment on his merit as a notable reviewer for a while." is a great lead in to this topic. Thanks! I've been following Scaruffi's "career" for a while now and have been resisting the need for commenting on Wikipedia's excessive tolerance on this matter.

I'm afraid the most that can be said for him is that he's great at selling himself. That in itself possibly merits an article devoted to him, backed by more-than-notable sources (as in "when was the last time YOU had a New York Times article devoted to you?"). However, between notoriety notability and being a respected source whose opinion can have far-reaching consequences there is one helluva distance. I've been in disagreement with most music critics for longer than many of you have had hot dinners, but barring very few exceptions, most of them are highly respectable in comparison.

How 'bout this as an example of what I'm getting at: Let's all agree, for the sake of argument, that John Lennon, a more-than-notable person in the music industry, was also a music expert employed by the established music press. We would accept his opinion for what it was. As in John Peel. Now let's suppose Lennon was just giving his opinion on his own blog/website...

OK, so down to the nitty-gritty. I've seen failed* AfDs based on the let's-take-it-to-the-extreme basis that a highly-respected scientific body and/or university faculty has been considered unacceptable as a source 'cos it was referring to one of its own faculty... *Long live common sense at Wikipedia! Regards, --Technopat (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Much as I would love to accept this 100%, I have grave doubts that we should accept "occupation=music critic" as being the be-all and end-all. There seems to be nothing in particular about this designation that appears to impute any authority whatsoever. In the case of "established" music critics, the only criterion would appear to be that they have been paid by someone for a sufficient length of time. It certainly doesn't seem to be governed by how many people agree with them, and their authority seems to be based on longevity rather than the quality of their reasoned arguments; I've seen Christgau give completely unsupported reviews to Fairport Convention albums, whereas at least Scaruffi tells you why he likes or doesn't approve. And that's the problem; with Scaruffi, you have an opportunity to disagree; with Christgau, for the same albums, you don't. At this point WP:NPOV appears; it's not just a case of providing a "balanced" set of reviews- it is a case of not treating our readers as dickheads, but giving them as much information as we have and letting them MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS without bias or patronising them. If they say Scaruffi is a weak authority, fine, but we are being fundamentally dishonest if we deny them that opportunity. That is not up to us. We are an encyclopedia, not a propaganda mill. --Rodhullandemu 23:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't mean to put your note in the middle of somebody else's comment and you move it, please move mine, too. :) Our own guideline says, "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." Do you propose that we change the guideline or that we make an exception for him? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Who cares? The guideline is balls, in that it assumes that only those who are paid to express an opinion are worthy of consideration. Any even cursory examination of, say, art critics, shows how shallow an analysis this is. If I could be paid to say how wonderful any article on Wikipedia is, then I would say that because at present I have the unenviable choice between eating or being warm, and that choice will become even more stark as the winter months advance. If it comes to it, I choose to pay 25% of my current income to improve the sum total of human knowledge by editing here, but potatoes are cheap where I live, onions only slightly more so, and I remember eating meat some weeks ago. Fish is a luxury. It's a fucking good job that knowledge is free. Isn't it? --Rodhullandemu 00:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I presume we care. If we didn't, I don't know why we'd be here, talking about whether he should be listed or not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Professional critcism is a major component of any art form. If a person is employed as a critic by an influential and major publication or media outlet, their opinion does matter. Take a cursory glance at any FA film article to see the importance of professional criticism. You may think art critics are full of crap, but there's no ignoring that what they say has an effect on how works of art are perceived and evaluated by historians. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But The Sun has a film critic, and so does The Times. Both are paid. End of argument. --Rodhullandemu 04:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

i have one question, if i make a blog and post my reviews here would this be also okay? i mean it's not that hard to write my own opinion in my articles without any professionality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.226.229 (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that doesn't settle anything, because you still have to establish that Piero Scaruffi is a reviewer worth citing. Claiming other reviewers are crap doesn't establish that. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it, Rochullandemu, if you would tone down the cursing. When I discovered the edit/revert war between you and User:81.173.224.230 (and various other people) on the Abbey Road (album) page as well as the other instances on various pages where you were doing the same, I wondered whether you were as neutral on the subject as you appeared, as you were the only one apparently defending the links. A variety of different editors all have a problem with Scaruffi being on the "accepted" list. When the links are removed, you point the editors removing the links to the "accepted" list. Now that his inclusion on that list is being discussed in an open forum (which is what you suggested that I do), you start swearing and SHOUTING. I'm a little disappointed that as one who likes to point people to "the list", AND who is a site administrator, you suddenly find WP guidelines as "balls". As you wrote on the Abbey Road talk page, usually "these discussion have a habit of either petering out through lack of interest, or no consensus being reached." Now discussion is taking place, and as far as I've seen, consensus is against inclusion on Wikipedia:ALBUM#Review_sites that list, but not against being used for those where other reviews aren't available. As the link appears to have been originally placed on the list without any discussion, I move that this be the case. KieferFL (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that this was an emotionally charged issue. At issue here, of course, is the subjective opinions of one individual. Wikipedia:NPOV#Characterizing opinions of people's work indicates that "it is important indeed to note how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate." Scaruffi is a notable individual, and I have quoted him in articles of my own. But at question here is whether he belongs in the infobox, which is currently set aside for "Professional reviews". If there were more substantial evidence that Scaruffi were widely cited as an expert, I would argue for his inclusion in spite of the fact that he does not technically meet the definition of "professional", because we could definitively establish that he is "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." However, as was pointed out above, the book I found that cites him does not speak to his authority as a critic. It is also only one reference, which doesn't establish him as "generally" regarded as anything. Since I have used Scaruffi, I put some time into looking. (He was referenced as an authority in one other book I found, but it, alas, was on a vanity press.) Doesn't mean I didn't miss anything, but, if I did, it wasn't for lack of looking. He doesn't meet the standards for inclusion for professional reviewers as set out here, and so far as I can see there is no strong reason to make an exception for including his opinion in the professional review section of the infobox. He may be a notable person, but his books & website are self-published sources, and he is not, so far as I can see, "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Including him as a professional reviewer would then be no different than including reviews from any other personal website or self-published blog. I'm still of the opinion that he should not be included in the infobox, though his books and reviews may be appropriate for discussion within the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As a summation, I'd agree with your last sentence here. He should remain "appropriate" or "approved" for links from the external links or references sections (for a variety of contexts), but possibly be removed from the infobox examples/recommendations list.

I ran into his reviews in the mid 90s, and would sentimentally like to defend him for inclusion in the infobox, but from the archives of this topic it doesn't appear to be a solid stance (according to our current guidelines, and with the evidence presented thus far). I'd compare this situation to that of Danny Yee. Not a professional critic, but often factually informative, and does get published elsewhere occasionally (like Scaruffi does at nudeasthenews), and is referred to regularly.

If he does get removed from the infoboxes, could someone organize a bot run, to confirm that any extant links found only in the infobox are moved to an "External links" section, so that the information is not lost (just the format/placement changed)? Thanks.

Hope that outside perspective helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. His comments on, say progressive rock, may be useful in the body of an article, but I don't think he's an oracle in general, nor should be treated as such. Problem when citing reviewers of *anything* is the old NPOV debate; in the body of an article we are free to cite competing arguments and let our readers make up their own minds. I have come to the conclusion that an infobox is, although a useful summary, a viper's nest of generalisation, as we have seen recently in relation to the "genre" field, and only this evening I have noted in relation to who is entitled to be regarded as a "creator" of Doctor Who. The problem we have in this regard is that what I might consider "superficial" editors (and that's not intended to be pejorative, merely that they don't look deeply enough into the bodies of articles) manipulate the infoboxes to reflect a fancrufty, and unreliably sourced impression. On balance, if only for practical reasons, Scaruffi's reviews should no longer be included in infoboxes, and, if anyone cares, my new medication has now stabilised to the extent that I can write this. --Rodhullandemu 00:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed him from the Infobox list, but I don't have a bot, so if somebody wants to do that, that would be great, if not I imagine the links will slowly dwindle over time. KieferFL (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

ok here speaks the guy who started this on october 21, well now he's out of the professional list but what should we do with his reviews of whom links are on album sites? should we delete him? in my opinion that is necessary because like i said before he's NOT professional: -The problem I have with this Scaruffi fellow is that while it's one thing to say you don't like a band like the Beatles, it's quite another to say that they're unoriginal, musically insignificant, essentially a 60s boy band, etc. These are objective statements that simply fail with any real knowledge of musicology.(beatles only as an example) that's not professional so why should we have links to his reviews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.255.43 (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that he's printed at least some reviews that are satisfactory, so the use of his site should be considered on a case by case basis. I notice we have not put him in the list of sites that should not be used, so he is apparently in limbo between the extremes. By the way, since we now have 20 sites in the recommended list, maybe they should be put in alphabetical order for ease of readability? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

that'sm a good idea, but then should we remove him from albums that are reviewed by other sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.51.7 (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree Scaruffi's negative reviews should not be used for the Beatles, Beach Boys etc, there are many, many cases where his reviews give deserved recognition to highly creative albums which are ignored by everyone else. So, what is the problem with using his positive reviews of little-known albums, but not using the controversial ratings of "sacred cows"? I'd also say he is a notable critic simply by virtue of his mountain of knowledge and ethical practices, ie not selling good reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.248.148 (talk • contribs) 29 October 2008

That would in itself violate WP:NPOV. He either meets our inclusion guidelines as a "Professional Reviewer" or he doesn't. If he does, his reviews should not be withheld from "sacred cows". :) I agree that he's notable and that his opinion may merit discussion in the article. But unless consensus changes on what goes in the review box, he doesn't seem to fit. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Chris Isaak - Wicked Games (compilation album)

Was reading the entry for Chris Isaak - Wicked Games, "hits" album here at Wikipedia. There are errors in the entry. The documentation claims the album was a hit on both sides of the Atlantic. Pretty sure that is wrong.

The album Wicked Games was compiled by Warner Brothers (WEA) U.K. and released in 1991. On the back of the LP it say "Compiled by Phil Knox-Roberts, WEA U.K., (C)1991, (P)1991. The reason WEA (Warner) U.K. did this was to cash in on the success of Isaak's then current song "Wicked Game" by piggyback songs from his first two albums that were not big sellers when first released in 1984 (SIvertone) and 1988 (Chris Isaak) on to a new album with a few songs from then popular Heart Shaped World album.

I own both the CD and LP release of Wicked Game. The album was not released here in North America at the time. Back in the mid 1990s I was working full time in Canadian music retail and was an import CD/LP music buyer. Regularly ordered the U.K. CD from an import sub-distributor. The LP says Made In Germany. CD was probably manufactured there as well. The copyright on both say WEA International. By the early 1990s, per title/release, Warner was only making one pressing in Europe for all major countries, (U.K., France and Germany). There are 3 different label numbers on Wicked Games refencing such.

Warner Music in Canada only began stocking the title on a regular basis a couple/3 years ago.

Amazon.com (U.S.) still shows the CD as being an import. Their date of 1998 and 1999 may only reference a date when they started carrying the title and/or a reissue date by Warner International. Maybe the CD was temporarily out of print in around 1998 and reissued shortly after. http://www.amazon.com/Wicked-Game-Chris-Isaak/dp/B000005S5S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beasley564 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a wiki. If you can improve the article, go ahead and fix it. Flowerparty^☀ 09:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, (Beasley564).

Track Listings for foreign albums

I'm a contributor of Philippine-related albums for example Grip Stand Throw and Pop U!. I would just like to ask what is the proper format of a song written in the vernacular? I've seen other editors making the that track italicized. Is this the proper style of writing? Thanks Edraf (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Details about formatting album articles can be found on the article to which this talk page is attached. Album titles should be in italics, which is accomplished by using 2 single quotes. Double quotes should not be used on album titles, but should always surround song titles, even when they are in another language. Italics should not be used for song titles. There are exceptions to these rules, when italics or quotes are actually part of the titles, for example: "But I Don't Want to Take a Bath!" from the album, Soundtrack from "The Annoying Child" (made-up example).

To make an album title both italic and bold, as seen on in the first sentence of articles about albums, use 5 singles quotes in a row. (It looks strange, but it works! Just remember to preview the results to make sure it comes out okay, and that you put in the right number of quotes.) This needs to be fixed on both of the articles you mentioned. The discography formatting instructions are a little more complicated, but the listings in your 2 articles are mostly correct. The articles could be improved by adding songwriter credits and timings, but please review the formatting instructions first. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Concentration 20

I'm not a participant in this project, but as I was strolling through random articles today, looking for copyediting or other places to improve, i came across Concentration 20. At first I set out only to tighten up the lead summary a bit, but as I read through, this seems almost entirely POV - obviously written by a fan. Before I eviscerated all the POV content and left a lowly stub, I thought I'd check with you experts and see what you thought. Tan | 39 21:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, you're an admin, so you should know how to analyze an article, and what to do about it. Rather than leave it a "lowly stub", isn't there a way to retain the facts and remove the superlatives? Seems to me there is more than a stub's worth of info in that article. (Hey, that's the first time I've ever had the chance to lecture an admin!) :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My question wasn't, "I don't know what to do about this article, does anyone else?" You're correct that I'm an admin, and I do have lots of article-building experience. My purpose here was to get some input from you folks who know more about current consensus for album articles, layout, sourcing, etc. If this is the sort of help I get from the project, however, you're probably right; I'm better off dealing with it on my own. Tan | 39 02:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't overlook the smilie on my post. Anyway, I'm not sure what I can tell you, except you're right, the article is loaded with POV, but as I said, it's better to fix that and retain the information, instead of removing just about everything and leaving a stub behind. I'm not sure what else you're asking about, or how anyone's experience with album articles in particular is going to be helpful in giving advice on this problem. Is there something specific we can help with? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Tracklist template

An editor recently converted the track listing in The Wall (Pink Floyd album) to Template:Tracklist. I have some problems with it, which I posted on the article's talk page, and let the editor know. I'm not asking for help about that. But I did note that the use of this template is not mentioned at all on the Albums project page. It does, however, say that a wikitable can be used "in more complicated situations", and points to its use in an article called Before These Crowded Streets.

So here is the problem: at the time that article was chosen as an example on the WP:ALBUM page (as was done at least half a year ago, maybe longer), it was using a standard wikitable. Recently, in August, an editor changed the article so it uses the Tracklist template. Therefore, it is no longer in the state that it was when it was selected as an example, and no longer serves as an example of what WP:ALBUM was attempting to demonstrate.

When posting on the other editor's talk page, I notice s/he mentioned seeing that recommendation and example, and took the instruction page's unintentional advice to copy what is done on that page.

The first thing that needs to be done, is find another example of an article that uses an ordinary wikitable, if that is still to be the instruction's intention. Another question is whether or not we want the project to support the use of the Tracklist template. You may want to consider the concerns I raised on the "Wall" talk page, and other concerns on the template's talk page. It appears that the template is rather new, and maybe just needs more development. Maybe the project can agree to support and improve it (but the improving would have to be done before the supporting). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether the project supports the template has been raised before. See, for example, here and here. I myself have gone on record as saying I think it's appropriate in complex situations, but not simple for the reasons in the guideline Wikipedia:LISTS#Tables. I recently utilized it for the first time in a complex situation, here. I don't know if I like it better than a standard table, as here, or not. :) With respect to the Wall, given the sensible objections you raise there about numbering, I wonder why it hasn't been restored to the original format. The template makes the article inaccurate. Unless its retooled to reflect actual song numbering on the original LPs, in accordance with the guideline, or unless individual templates were utilized, it's inappropriate. That's not a matter of aesthetics, obviously. As for examples, do you have one in mind? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove the template because I wanted to see if it could be fixed first. I looked at it some more, and found out the cause of the problems, and was able to address my concerns. So I'm okay with it in that article, and withdraw my objections. I see you are looking into what can be done about the "recommendation" of the template, below, which is the main reason I posted here. Thanks! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As a by-product of this I think when using an article as an example of something in the guidelines it would be better to use a permanent link to the version of the page that is being used rather than just a standard wikilink which may quickly become out of date. --JD554 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a stellar idea. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Another idea might be to copy the table into the instructions, instead of pointing to the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if the Tracklist template was mentioned on the main project page, in the section about track listings. Something about how the use of the Tracklist template is allowed, but is only recommended in certain non-standard situations where it would be helpful, since that's apparently the consensus of the previous discussions. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, but note that it was contested by the template's creator, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Would I be right in assuming that the new tracklist table is indeed being widely adopted as the new standard? If so, I might as well start going back over the articles I've made and re-do them with all the songwriting/lyrical credits. I want everything to be up to date with Wiki's guidelines, after all. Mac dreamstate (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the guidelines should atleast some mention about the template. Something like it is acceptable, although not standard. I have a user basically saying that a numbered list should be used only since WK:Albums makes no mention of it, even though the situation is a bit complex. (with lots of writers and producers for each track) Greekboy (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not needed unless writing credits differ greatly from song to song. For a simple tracklist, the template actually makes it harder to read due to the vast amount of blank space between track times and song titles. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the case for Circus (Britney Spears album). There is a mass number of "Writers" (not distinguished between music and lyrics) for each track, as well as producers, and all different for each track. I don't really know which way is best for it.Greekboy (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You could try to shave off some fat from that list by only listing the family names of individuals who have already been mentioned (though with the sheer amount of people involved, that might actually prove to be confusing) and personally, I might have waited until all track lengths had become available (though settling for a big glob of text until release isn't a very attractive choice either) – all in all (and as one of the aforementioned creators), I'd say the template has been well applied, both in use and code formatting. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 07:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

View from the Vault merge proposal

An editor has created a new article called View from the Vault, and is proposing that four Grateful Dead album articles be merged into this one new article -- View from the Vault, Volume One, View from the Vault, Volume Two, View from the Vault, Volume Three, and View from the Vault, Volume Four. Members of WikiProject Albums are requested to study this proposal and comment at Talk:View from the Vault#Merge with constituent albums. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We really could use some additional opinions about this. If more editors could take a quick look at this merge proposal and post their opinions, at Talk:View from the Vault#Merge with constituent albums, that would be great. Thanks in advance. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ALBUMCAPS

Why are short verbs and pronouns capitalized? لennavecia 17:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I always thought it was a standard way to do it, see titles entry in The Guardian style guide and titles of books, films, discs, programmes etc entry in TimesOnline style guide. --JD554 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll look over it, thanks. I ask because in the case that came up for me ("V" Is for Vagina and some related albums with very similar titles), it just doesn't look right, and it's now how the band capitalizes. I was thinking it would be one of those issues that would be determined by sources, and wondered why we had it capitalized. I found this guide, and so figured I would ask. Thanks again. لennavecia 01:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Album cover images in video game discographies

Please see the discussion I have started here, and comment if you have an opinion. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Albums by genre per year?

Recently created are categories Category:Hip hop albums by year and many subcategories, such as Category:Hip hop albums in 2008. I know there are many "Albums by genre" categories and "Albums by year" categories, but I have never seen what basically amounts to an "Album by genre by year" category. I would like to nominate these for CfD, but I am not sure if a deletion or rename is more in order. Maybe the genre by year categorization has been discussed before. If renaming, would something along the lines of Category:2008 hip hop albums or Category:Hip hop albums of 2008 be better? Looking for some feedback prior to a CfD. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

These might actually be useful. The albums by year cats are so populous as to be navigationally worthless - category:2008 albums has over 3000 articles in it, for instance. But they'll definitely need a rename: what was a hip hop album in 2008 will still be a hip hop album in 2009. "2008 hip hop albums" would seem a good choice. Take it to cfd, I'll be interested to see what happens. Flowerparty^☀ 20:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

One hold-up might be that a lot of genres aren't sourced so the categories might turn into another edit war. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Stephen. Also, the only categories that were created for hip hop. Where's R&B, rock, country, heavy metal? And what if Category:East Coast hip hop in 2008 is created? Do we go for every subgenre, and who's to say what album is what genre when genre field themselves often find themselves in edit wars? And don't songs need a these categories as well, such as Category:Hip hop songs in 2008? It'll just turn out a big mess, honestly. DiverseMentality 20:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a bit of a precedent for this type of categorization, coming from the Films project. See Category: 1970s horror films for example. A by-decade -> by-year -> by-genre tree of categorization could be useful, as long as only the most general genres are applied (rock, pop, hip-hop, classical, jazz, etc.) Could lead to POV battles, though. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We do have "Albums by genre" categories, but I don't think we need "Albums by genre by year" categories. Avoid overcategorization. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. This is pretty blatant overcategorization. We already categorize albums by year and genre separately, no need to combine the two as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Concept album

For an article rated of high importance to WP:ALBUMS, concept album is a great big mess. If some-a youse could swing by and weigh in on the talk page, I'd like to get this embarrassment sorted out. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Tracklist

As per previous discussions, I do not believe that we should incorporate template:tracklist into the guidelines without agreeing on language to note when it may be appropriate to use it. It has long been consensus at Wikipedia:List#Tables that lists are preferred to tables in simple situations. (See also Wikipedia:When to use tables.) Tables are not necessary for a simple tracklist, though they may be extremely useful in more complex cases. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the recommendation should be that the template is only used if the track listing is more complicated than:

Track# "Track title" (Written by) – track length

--JD554 (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In what situations can it be more complicated. Are there any examples? --neon white talk 17:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are two from my own experiences: The Best of the Girl Groups and The Best of Earth, Wind & Fire, Vol. 1. As you can see, I utilized the template in the second case. I'm not crazy about the small lettering, but that's a separate issue. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the question is: Is all that info really necessary in a tracklist? --neon white talk 14:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the best place to put it to me. There's no graceful way to compose a text section indicating, for instance, on which album a song first appeared. Footnotes could be utilized, but would be tedious to check for each song. A separate table could be utilized, but I don't know what the benefit would be of creating two where one will serve. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really address the question, why is it necessary for that info to be there in particular? I'm sure the info exists elsewhere and when this is the case, wikilinking is preferable over repeating info. Remember that wikipedia doesnt have to include every piece of info, it's not a record database. --neon white talk 00:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Apart from Moonriddengirl's examples I would say that most modern R&B, hip hop, rap, etc articles are more complicated due the number of collaborations, producers, performers etc. --JD554 (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we establish that the use of the tracklist template would be optional? I remember I made a comparision to all the various cite templates, which are helpful, but are not mandatory since you can also format by hand if you know what you're doing. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be. I guess we just need to try to get the correct wording for the guidelines decided (just!) --JD554 (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Freekee questioned whether we should not support it at all, here, but there was no discussion about adding it to the guideline. When it was added here, I proposed a revision to incorporate it with note about when it should perhaps be used here. My modification was rejected, so we went back to previous version. Conversation about it is here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be allowed, and I think we should mention it in the project guidelines. It seems that somewhere along the way, someone didn't like the template and started reverting it from articles. Then people came here and started a debate saying it shouldn't be used unless we use it on all articles, and by the way, it's ugly and unnecessary for most articles, and that means we shouldn't use it for any if we're not using it on all. I don't see anything wrong with using it on whatever articles an author sees fit. But I don't care for the idea of reverting it back out just because you don't like it. I'm kind of an inclusionist that way - if someone put it in, and it's not causing any problems, leave it. I think it looks fine on any tracklist, regardless of the amount - small or large - of info included. Is there a way we can phrase it to suggest that its use is up to the early authors, and not to add or remove it from established articles except in cases for clarity? -Freekee (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it does cause problems, for reasons I explained before, in that it adds unnecessary complexity in correcting misinformation. (I had to add an author credit to Broken (Nine Inch Nails EP). A simple matter with a list, but no place to put it in the table as it was. This is why the guideline says what it says; a table "has more complex notation which hinders editing". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? Too many pronouns. What adds complexity? Oh, you're saying that the template should not be used under some circumstances, according to the guideline that suggests when tables not be used. Okay, so templates fall in the same group as tables? I was not aware of that. Actually, I disagree, unless there's a Wiki guideline that overrules me. I think that tables can be complex, due to their formatting requirements. Templates involve more typing than a regular list, but they're preformatted, and you can just leave out whatever part you don't want (unlike tables). I still vote for what I said, but with a slightly lesser preference for only using the template for complex tracklists. -Freekee (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd also say that the table/template comparison is a moot point, as per Freekee's distinction and my own experience with such elements in general. That being said, I stand by my earlier argument, that mentioning {{tracklist}} as an option for editors is fine and by now probably desirable, while having such an addition come with upfront usage restrictions is not. It would not accurately reflect current usage and hence aspire to be prescriptive (rather than descriptive). Top-down decision making like that does have an aptitude for backfiring, the recent removal of genre fields from infoboxes comes to mind. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 00:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Currently, then, we seem to lack consensus on this point. Slow project though we are, perhaps other contributors will weigh in to help establish such. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ALBUMCAPS update

I updated the last paragraph of this section as follows (changes in bold):

In titles of songs or albums in a language other than English, the project standard is to use the capitalization utilized by that language, not the English capitalization. (If you are unsure about the capitalization standards of other languages, check with the appropriate WikiProject or language Manual of Style, the foreign-language Wikipedias, or the MusicBrainz documentation.)

I made this change because the appropriate language/country WikiProject is going to likely know the answer, and if there is a Manual of Style for that language, this will likely be covered there as well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Side One / Side Two

I keep coming across articles where the songs are listed 1 to 10 (or similar). Should older albums be split into side one and side two? That's the way I've always done it since that's how the albums were originally released. I would think anything from 1990 on can be listed free of this (since that's around the time CDs took over). For example, shouldn't this have a track listing like this. Historically, the first song on side 2 was usually quite significant (and also the last song on side 1), so where the divide was is of interest surely. What does anyone else think?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen many different formats, and where there is significant difference there are often separate tracklist for LP and CD versions. Generally, though, I see the sides listed as Side A and Side B, though that's probably more common for singles than LPs. Nowadays, though, a lot of rock albums are released primarily on CD, but an LP is also put out for collectors. Should we have 2 tracklists then? --IllaZilla (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The impression I've been getting, is that albums are being presented with a multi-part tracklist when only actual reissues were in a one-disc-format. Articles about records with simultaneous CD/vinyl releases tend to reflect the more modern format. While we're at it: I've seen a couple of vinyl tracklists that differentiated between sides, but still used continuous numbering; can these be considered oddities or a rather common format? – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen records that list the tracks on side one's label as 1 through 5, and on side two's label as 6 through 10, although this isn't common. The numbering on the label is there to make it easy to count the bands and set the needle down in the desired place. Of course, you could say the same thing about CD track numbering. But I doubt anybody is queuing up their records or CDs while glancing over their shoulder at the computer screen displaying the Wikipedia article. To come back to the main question, I agree that the division point was often regarded as significant, and played a factor in deciding the order of tracks, so they should be mentioned. It costs nothing to show them in articles, and readers can just ignore the "side two" break if they want to know about the CD. If you want to put in a break, then continue the second list beginning at #6, there is a trick to do that, but why make things complicated. In conclusion, I'm for 1 through 5 and 1 through 5 again, but I'm biased because my politics are for vinyl-over-CD (that's the VCD Party; and Down with the CDV Party!). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't be too worried about it being 1-5 and 1-5 or 1-5 and 6-10, but I just think that album tracklisting should be presented in the way it was originally released. As like someone else points out - the fact it was on 2 sides was a factor in the ordering of tracks. Certainly any new albums will be presented 1-10 continuous as they're released all on one side now (ie. CDs). As I say, I figure the dividing line should be about 1990, anything before - listed as Side 1 and 2 - anything after - all in one.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternate covers

An admin is trying to get alternate covers to singles deleted as failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 even though they are different. I know this particular one is for a single, but it has obvious implications to album articles too. If anybody is interested in contributing to the discussion, it is taking place here. There are other images on that page up for discussion, but that seems to be the one the admin is willing to discuss. --JD554 (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

These issues are pretty much decided on a case by case basis not as an overall policy, so it really doesn't have any implications for articles other than the one in question. --neon white talk 14:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with this image, and added a vote for keep on the IFD page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Songfacts

I've noticed an increasing number of album/song articles referencing songfacts.com [2]. This site never provides citations for their "facts", often features incorrect information, and is at least partly user-generated. Can we reach consensus that songfacts.com is not an acceptable reference here? Jgm (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is, in fact, user generated. Definitely not a reliable source. DiverseMentality 21:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree; it's sometimes a good place to get ideas or avenues for research, but anything you find there needs independent verification. It's no more reliable than IMDB for films, and is often more like a forum for people's interpretations - not a reliable source by any means. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

When you see a site being referenced frequently in a short time, chances are it's being added by one or two people who might work for the company. We have a list of sites recommended and not recommended on our project page. Should we add this site to the latter list? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was hoping to have happen, so we have something to refer to when editing. I'm not sure the protocol for changing a guideline on a project page - have we already reached enough consensus to do so? The only other minor problem would be that songfacts is not, technically, a "review" site so we might have to change the header ("Review / information sources"?) Jgm (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can start it off with XLinkBot? DiverseMentality 20:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Consistent layout?

Is there a layout that all album articles should follow? Like a set list of things like these are your sub headers, in this section write about this etc? Some articles have like X&Y and Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends have a section "release and reception" where it talk about the release dates and any chart peaks and then has a seemingly unsourced release date table at the bottom of the page with chart peaks in a table. My rule of thumb has always been that anything in a table must be written. My example is Vrisko To Logo Na Zo where all release date information is in a release history section with the table section and all charting information is with the table in the charts section. Which way is the "right" way. If we don't have one, we should definitely develop a model or something because all album articles should be consistent. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a "right way". If you look at FA-class album articles you'll get a broad mixture. WP:ALBUMS#Article_body says that the release history can (not must) be in a table and gives an example. --JD554 (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles are works in progress. Some are stubs, some are short or medium sized articles, and some are lengthly with a lot of technical detail. The format depends on whatever is appropriate for the level of detail, and how many editions of the album there are. A "classic" album released long ago will have been issued in many countries, and in many different editions in most of those countries, and requires table organization if the statistics are available in the article at this time. A recent or obscure album could have just one edition in one country, and paragraphs are fine to describe the details. If we know how an album peaked on 1 or 2 charts, but have no knowledge about its chart success in the rest of the world, a table is not necessary. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but can you relate that to my examples. Basically should a write up about whats in a table be in a release and reception section or down in the section with the actual tables. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that comes down to general good article writing. Once you get down to that level of detail, you're going to be covering everything. -Freekee (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no set way because each album is different. Compare the Featured Articles Loveless (album) and In Rainbows. Two very different articles, but both are excellent exmaples of articles that met FA expectations. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new album type

I propose that a new album type be added to the Template:Infobox Album template: "album series". There are many articles which deal with multiple articles which form a series (ex. O3: A Trilogy, First Live Recordings, Winter Story, etc.). The album infobox seems to be the most appropriate infobox to use in these cases, but using the current album types make the infobox state that the article is about one individual album rather than multiple related albums. Neelix (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You could also have a series of live albums, a series of compilation albums, etc. Given just one choice, would a series of the latter be better listed as "compilation" or "series"? If we create a "series" type, it would have to be used for any kind of series, and would no longer indicate a studio album, for example.

The problem here, is that there are several things that could be meant by "type" including type of recording (studio vs. live, probably the original intent of the field), physical format (EP), packaging (box set), and so on. Creating a field for a different aspect of "type" (different type of type?) gets us into the problem of combinations. I think it's better to create a new type only when the existing choices are proven to all be inadequate for an album. A new type, which fits this need, is being requested 2 sections up, along with a suggestion (non-urgent, so I don't expect it to be acted upon at this time) that we consider removing some types in future, partly because of the overlap / combination problem. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about an infobox for an article about a whole series of records, you need a new infobox. If you're talking about an infobox for an article about an album that happens to belong to a series, use the standard infobox, with the standard choices. You just mention in the article that it's part of a series, and link to the article about the series. Otherwise, just do it like any of the three articles you linked to. They each look fine. -Freekee (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll just create a new infobox template for album series. Thanks for the input! Neelix (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to use the existing infobox and make clear it's a series of albums. You could use the "longtype" field. Typing the following

| Type        = Compilation album
| Longtype    = series

would give you Compilation album series by.... This is a bit of a hack, though. Flowerparty^☀ 20:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That solves the problem! Thanks! Neelix (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge "Television theme" and "Film score" album types into "Soundtrack"

Both of those are extemely closely related. In fact "Television theme" links back to "soundtrack" the same way "soundtrack" does. The differences in them are minor and imo its a case of over specialization.じんない 04:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a film score is very different from a soundtrack album, though not so different to warrant a new color. Take a look at the chart. There are only six categories (not including video) - studio, live, EP (which I dislike), compilation, soundtracks and covers. It just so happens that the soundtracks has three different names that can be used, for accuracy. Covers has two different names, for the same reason - a covers album is usually by one artist, where a tribute album is different artists covering one artist. It's an important distinction, but they're both purple. Compilations is different. There are four. Three of them are almost exactly the same, but editors insist on using the different forms (and "box set" is a bit of differentiation), so we granted them. Remixes are a different type, and could be considered a different type altogether. It was somewhat of a compromise move to put them in green. Anyway, that's the reason three different types are used, when they're so similar - it's really only one type, with three different allowable names. -Freekee (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't give a reason for television themes. And technically greatest hits is similar to a compilation as well. Again, just because some people insist on using something is not good enough for Wikiipedia and the sections are over-categorized in some areas to the point it has become categorization for the sake of categorization more than any substantial difference.じんない 15:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that greatest hits and compilation are analogous - see Barbed Wire Kisses as just one of many examples that doesn't just include singles. --JD554 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right that not all compilations are greatest hits packages, but all greatest hits records are compilations. So we could drop the GH choice, but it's a nod to the (stubbornly) popular choice of editors, since it is not inaccurate. -Freekee (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I did not bring up the proposal to merge any of those. Just the 2 mentioned above.じんない 16:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned by Freekee, the distinction is only superficial anyway as "it's really only one type, with three different allowable names". Thus no need for any alteration imo. tomasz. 17:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That is actually the best reason. Wikipedia does not divide categories superficially. There needs to be a reason. I have seen at least some argument for keeping film score, though to be honest still not that valid compared to ones we're missing, but not television theme.じんない 05:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not a superficial distinction. It is a distinction of precision. Someone argued that a film score is not necessarily the same as a soundtrack. Above all, we should be accurate. -Freekee (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

When is a film score not a soundtrack? (Asking because a couple of editors have mentioned this.) If it's for music written or recorded as a soundtrack but not used in a film, or soundtrack music re-recorded for an album and different from what was used in the film, shouldn't it be classified as a studio recording? Or as a soundtrack if marketed as such, even though it's not the exact soundtrack? It seems to me these are oddball cases that can be covered in other categories. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to say. Same thing with Greatest hits always being compilations. When is a Greatest Hits album not a compilation?じんない 05:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for new album type

Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes falls short for a certain category dealing with fictional element. Specifically, it does not really have any category to deal with characters songs, songs done by an artist in the theme of a particular character or characters and released as such.じんない 05:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you give an example of such a thing? I'm having trouble visualizing how it "falls short". I assume you're speaking of acts like Gorillaz. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That would probably fall under the category. The one that brought this up was from Popotan. It The unclassified one contains mostly visual novel songs, which would normally just qualify it for a soundtrack, but it also contains the song sung, possibly as a promotion (i don't have enough info at this time) for a raido drama. The length is also short enough to be classified as an EP, though it was released as a bonus with a ps2, so it really isn't. Also, more specifically, the 2 live albums are all in-character related as well.じんない 05:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just done an album page which also falls under an unknown category: All for a Song. Fact is: out of 12 songs, 8 are new recordings (studio) and 4 are past hits (compilation). I know a compilation album can very often include new recordings, but these wouldn't be the majority. It's more of a studio album, but a big selling point of the album would have been the 4 hits - so it is partly a compilation. I can think of arguments for both categories. Have a look at it and see if we can reach a consensus.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not unusual for an album to be split over two types, i.e. half live and half studio. We generally pick whichever is preferred after discussion on the talk page. "Studio" might be better because it covers the majority of tracks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Splitting Radio dramas from Live albums

Well the album was classified as a soundtrack.

However, it does bring up another thing. I would really like to have another section for radio dramas and have it separate from live album. While the 2 are similar (and thus should have similar colors, they are fundamentally different in that the radio dramas might actually be more of a show and also may also contain studio recordings of their theme songs. This is not without precedent as film scores and television themes are similar to soundtracks, yet are classified separately and radio dramas are more distinct from live albums than the latter.じんない 05:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A broader term would be "spoken word". However, we should probably not try to create too many categories. I'm surprised we have as many as we do, and many albums would fit more than one, i.e. a live album that is also a soundtrack to a concert film. It's best to choose an existing category that fits best. On the other hand, "spoken word" seems to be more appropriate request for a new category than some of the redundant categories we have already listed. We could probably trim 1/3 from the existing list. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Spoken word" sounds a bit awkward, but the broader category idea is fine.

I do agree that a few of them have gotten out of hand, specifically "Television theme" and Film score are very close to soundtrack; the former directly links to soundtrack even. Greatest hits, box set and compilation are also very similar. I don't know enough to comment on the rest.じんない 22:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, spoken word and comedy albums are neglected types. Most of the time they fall generally under the category of "live" albums, since most are recorded live, but they're definitely distinct from music albums and usually have their own section devoted to them in retail stores & their own genre listings (spoken word/comedy) on music databases. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A lot of comedy records are not recorded live (so I agree that the "live" selection is not best for them), and a lot of spoken word records are not comedy. I don't think we need to have separate spoken word and comedy divisions. And if a comedy record is not spoken word (i.e. it's music), it belongs with other music categories; comedy is just a genre. Spoken word is a widely recognized term; record stores often have a section with that name. I agree with the post 2 up about redundant categories, but don't know if it's worth considering removing any, because there are probably some album articles that use them, and we would have to deal with finding and changing them first. Okay, time for a proposal, and an unindent:

Proposal: Create a new "spoken word" value for the "type" field, with a new colour, as I don't see any current values that are a related type. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that if a current type applies, use it. Moreso, what you're proposing is an infobox type assigned to a genre. Spoken word, comedy, radio dramas... a capella, traditional indigenous? Album types are a matter of how they were made, not their content. -Freekee (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's unclear in some cases if all the content was live or not.じんない 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a shot. If it seems like it would be controversial, mention the confusion in the article, or at least on the talk page. -Freekee (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You also argued about that using Spoken Word, FE is dividing it along content, not how they were made. Isn't that how we divide soundtracks? That whole division is all content-related.じんない 19:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. You could make the call to call film scores studio albums, and soundtracks either studio or compilation. I wouldn't go for that, since I think that's such a huge category and one that doesn't seem to be a matter of simple genre, but feel free to make the request. -Freekee (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of defining ever more rarefied "types", how about if it's unclear we just let people call an album an album? If type = Album rendered simply as Album by... then there wouldn't be a problem. Flowerparty^☀ 20:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This could be okay. Since the project would still make a recommendation that this type be refined, this solution would only be making the infobox not appear incorrect while someone comes up with an answer. -Freekee (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but "spoken word" isn't exactly rare. It also, as mentioned by lead to overspecialized classifications which dilute the meaning.じんない 08:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't necessarily be wrong. In some cases this would be the only sensible solution. Tuzapicabit's example above, for instance, or something like Seminal Live. I'm sure there's lots of albums that don't fit neatly into any particular category. It's daft to force them into one that doesn't fit. Flowerparty^☀ 10:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Cast recording

I just made my first album article, but there seems to be no code for the infobox for a cast recording. Soundtrack is nearesr, but not perfect, but the album type is not "unknown" so leaving it blank seems strange. Can cast recording be added to the codes?Yobmod (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Was it recorded during performance? If so, it would be a "Live album", which (by our definition, anyway) "is a recording consisting of material (usually music) recorded during stage performances." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Or else studio.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Promotional singles

Technically, promotional singles are not actual singles from an album. With that being said, should promotional singles be listed in the single chronology of the album's article? DiverseMentality 23:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say they should be mentioned in the description of the album, but not on the list, unless the have been given a formal album number.じんない 05:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

By formal album number, do you mean a track on an album? DiverseMentality 07:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put a promotional singles details in the infobox as they aren't commercial releases. --JD554 (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends, especially when considering the American market. Important questions to always ask: did it chart on a single chart determined by airplay? Did it have a video? Did the record company explicity say it was a single, albeit one that wasn't for sale? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DiverseMentality, yes. Sometimes albums give such tracks actual numbers. It should still be mentioned in the infobox that the tack is not on the physical album.じんない 08:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a promotional release would meet notability standards. Unless it does, I would say no. If you can provide an example of one that has an article, maybe I could give you a better answer. -Freekee (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A song like Upgrade U that was used as a promotional single but not technically a single might count. Ratizi1 (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Track lists must be in table format

Track lists must be in table format. I'm going to make this as clear as possible. I'm not really concerned with whether to use Template:Tracklist or not. That's its own issue. But tracklists are clearly tabular.

Arguments for table-format track lists:

• HTML lists are for one-dimensional data. HTML tables are for two-dimensional data. There is no debate about this! It is semantically incorrect to use lists for four columns' worth of information. Two columns, maybe. Four columns, absolutely not.
• Data in tables is marked up in a way that makes it useful. Say I want to copy a track list from Wikipedia into a Word document, remove all the data about writers, and put all the song titles in bold. What markup format will make this easier? If it's a list I have to do each of these steps separately for each track. If it's a table, I only have to do them all once.
• Lists look like shit for two-dimensional data. This is subjective, but they really, really do. That's why tables were created.

Arguments against table-format track lists:

• "Tables are more difficult to create." Slightly. Not so much that we'll need specialists to do it. The current list arrangement requires en dashes; isn't that more difficult than hyphens? But it's a reasonable policy since hyphens aren't for that purpose. If an editor is really having such a hard time making a table, they can just make the list in plaintext format and a smarter editor will come by and fix it into a proper table. Not a big deal at all. This is equivalent to all the complaining about <ref /> and {{cite}}. Yes, they're hard to use. Luckily, most people have a basic level of intelligence, and can make up for the few that can't do it. If the correct way is too hard, do it the simpler way, and someone else will fix it. That's how this whole encyclopedia works.
• "It is more difficult to correct misinformation in a table." It is so rare for something like this to happen that I can't even imagine why it's worth talking about. If you can't do it, leave a message on the talk page. Ask some other user to do it. Ask me to do it. Leave a message here. Just write the correction under the table. Your options are endless. In the vast majority of album pages, the track list is going to be created once and never be edited for the rest of time. It's pretty hard to screw up; if there is some typo that needs to be edited, we can do that case-by-case.
• "We've been doing lists since Wikipedia started; we're not going to change it now." First of all, Wikipedia's less than eight years old, and I think the general plan is for it to be around for a long time. It's ludicrous to say we can't fix a massive problem because "it's too late". Problems need to be fixed no matter how long they've been around.
• "Who's going to change all the album articles?" Same people that implement all the other MOS changes (e.g. bots). I don't buy the argument that rules shouldn't be fixed just because they'll take a while to implement. Even if only 40% of the articles get fixed, that's still 40% that would not have been fixed without the rule change. If it makes you feel better, we can say "tables are preferred, but lists are acceptable."
• "No one agrees with you, we've already had this discussion, you're a fringe view, just give it up." Fuck you. Tell me why I'm wrong, not that I'm wrong. —Werson (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I was interested until I read "Fuck you". I think lists look fine. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Bretonbanquet on all parts. Tables aren't a must. There are plenty of track listings that don't require a table because the information isn't that complex. In some circumstances, lists are a lot easier to read than tables. DiverseMentality 20:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Tables are recommended for three columns or more, according to the MOS. All track listings have at least three columns; most have four. That makes it two-dimensional data, and makes it complicated enough to require a table. Under what circumstances do columns make data more difficult to read? —Werson (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of track lists have only two columns. Many of them have an author statement at the top, so there's only song title and time. -Freekee (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with DiverseMentality.Cloonmore (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have something to say, you're crowding the conversation. This isn't a vote. —Werson (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

True, it's not a vote; it's a rant, which is why I saw no purpose in responding in greater detail. Cheers. Cloonmore (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing must be done a certain way if other ways are perfectly good, and coming in with a perenniel suggestion coupled with a lot of attitude isn't going to go over well on this or any other WikiProject. Lists are preferred because they are simpler. And in my opinion, they are easier on the eyes; no annoying lines breaking up the the text. Another reason for not using tables at this time, is the only widely used template (tracklist) is kind of an alpha/beta version. It has a lot of deficiencies and bugs, and is not well protected against vandalism, all subjects which have been discussed on the template's talk page. This does not mean it should be abandoned, but I'm surprised it is widely used, considering these problems. Work on fixing it is probably hampered by disinterest, because many editors feel a simple list is nicer, so there is no big push on to develop it to where it would need to be for universal use. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Lists aren't "perfectly good", whatever that means. I pointed out the problems above. Why do track lists have to be slightly simpler at the expense of functionality? For something that only needs to be created once and never edited, functionality is the top priority. Simplicity is second. Simplicity is the top priority for something that needs to be edited frequently by a variety of editors. The difference in simplicity is negligible anyway, given the en-dash business.

And I don't know why you're talking about that template. We don't need a template, I never suggested using that template. We have table functionality on Wikipedia already. —Werson (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the 4 editors above. Nothing must be done a certain way (frankly, we couldn't care less if it's slightly less convenient for you to copy/paste into Word...how is that a reason for anything?). Different article call for different formats. For many albums, a list is perfectly fine because all that needs to be listed is a title and length. For other albums that require more complex information in their tracklists (credits, samples, etc.) tables or the tracklist template may be a better format. To say "one size fits all, and screw you if you don't agree with me", is wholly inappropriate. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what the guideline says, and doesn't address any of my points at all. —Werson (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Because your points do not need to be addressed. One size does not fit all, and one format across all articles is not the best service to our readers. Tables are good in some cases, not in others. I think that addresses all of your points. We are not going to pass some hard-and-fast guideline that says "every album article must use tables for track lists". That would be inappropriate, and there is clearly no consensus to do so. We have had this discussion several times before, and all of these points have been covered before. Your "agree with me or screw you" attitude is wholly unwelcome and does not encourage anyone to take your arguments seriously, much less to re-tread debates we've already hashed out several times. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't address anything. Are you even aware of what the guideline says right now? It says that articles must use numbered lists unless they are "complicated", in which case they should use tables. That is a hard-and-fast rule. It clearly says that the majority of the articles need to use numbered lists. If I write an article on an album, and use a table for its tracklist, an editor will change it to a numbered list, on the basis of this project's guidelines. So right now you're all saying "agree with me or screw you".

You're dodging the issue by saying "tables are good in some cases, not in others." That's what the guideline already says, and I'm well aware that it says that. You haven't explained why they are not acceptable for average articles. You just keep repeating the guideline, over and over, as if it's some compromise. Not one person in this discussion has given any reason why a normal album article (#–Title–Length, three fields) can't use a table, and that's what I'm asking. Everyone just keeps saying "lists are better for some articles, tables are better for some articles"—why not just change the guideline to say "both are acceptable", rather than say "lists must be used for articles, unless they have a lot of fields"?

I'm sorry my "attitude" bothers you, but the response I've been getting is horrendous. Bretonbanquet and Cloonmore both said "agree with me or screw you". DiverseMentality said "tables aren't a must", which doesn't explain why lists are a must. Knight guy said the tracklist template is in beta, which has nothing to do with the discussion at all, and you just keep saying "tables aren't necessary for some articles" without explaining why, "it would be inappropriate for editors to have a one-size-fits-all guideline" like that's not what we already have, and whining about my attitude like that somehow means I'm wrong. —Werson (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

May a fairly newer editor butt in here?

I've been working on discographies for two artists thus far. First, I hit Ben E. King and have temporarily stopped my work on that project. I may go back to it eventually (more on that in a moment). Second, I've hit Kenny Rogers. Assuming I reach the light at the other end of that tunnel, I plan to either return to King or find artists with about 10-20% the number of albums released (compared to Rogers, say) to work with in the future, as Kenny has more albums than ten newer artists combined (bargain bin included).

I have yet to see an album with tables used properly (I've seen some Destiny's Child that way, but they look like crap and don't provide much information in them). One admin., I've spoken to actually agreed with the list format and gave me guidelines for most properly inputting the information, which I've taken in my style.

My problem with tables is numbering the items in the table; pound signs will NOT work, unless I'm clearly missing something here. Further, if I have a dinky little ten-track album (pretty much the norm. in the music industry), I'm not going to table it because it doesn't need it. Since starting Rogers' entries, my track listings are strictly as follows:

88. The Eighty-Eighth Track (John Doe, Jane Doe) [8:88]

::88. The Eighty-Eighth Track (John Doe, Jane Doe) [8:88]

That's ALL we need! If I am doing a compilation album, I'll add a BR tag and a few non-breakable spaces (the ALT key and the right side of a keyboard are useful for this, use code 0160 to create the spaces, I generally use four), and then after those spaces place the originating album information. See below:

88. The Eighty-Eighth Track (John Doe, Jane Doe) [8:88]
(from the 2088 album Doe's Greatest Hits)

::88. The Eighty-Eighth Track (John Doe, Jane Doe) [8:88]
    (from the 2088 album Doe's Greatest Hits)

Curious? Look at Kenny Rogers' 1980 Greatest Hits album and you'll see my practice in use. It looks GREAT in my opinion and does a nice job of spacing out the two-dimensional data quite well, especially the second line of each entry. Check the other compilations in the 1980s for him as well, and slightly before, and you'll see I do not waver on this. I believe my style is correct and will only use tables in - well, maybe not ever, but I might see a need for it warranted one day.

Please feel free to comment, folks. I'll get off the soapbox now. CycloneGU (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Werson, can I ask, what particular tables are you talking about? Can you show us an example of what you mean? I've seen plenty of album pages with different styles of tracklistings. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Werson, if you can quote where I said "agree with me or screw you", that would be very interesting. I said no such thing. If your argument consists of taking what other people say and interpreting it as a personal atack on you, then we're all wasting our time. What I said was "I think lists look fine". That's my opinion. I don't think tables look as good, how else would you like me to phrase it? Someone disagrees with you, they are not obliged to write a 2000-word explanation of their reasonings just because you want them to. It's a subjective thing - I don't like tables, lists are fine. If I wanted to be aggressive and over-opinionated, I'd have said "screw you" and spent half an hour telling everyone why MY idea is BEST and MUST be implemented, but we're not all like that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you read IllaZilla's posts, which I was responding to. He basically did everything you just said (making up quotes, taking my "attitude" as a personal attack) and I was responding in turn. Nowhere in my original post did I say "everyone has to agree with me or screw you". If that was my attitude, I'd just change the guideline myself and start revert wars and be a huge asshole. Instead, I explained my opinion in detail on a talk page, asked people to tell me why I'm wrong. I only said "fuck you" to the people who want to give me the standard litany of "give it up, you're a fringe view", which is usually what I get when I express my opinions on talk pages.

If you're all offended that I used the word "must" instead of "i really want it pretty please :( :( :( :(", read up on what argumentative essays look like. All I want are actual reasons why lists are better (other than the lame reasons I listed above). If the one reason everyone agrees on is that they look better, and that's it, then fine. That's good enough. I would strongly prefer, as IllaZilla said, that there not be a hard-and-fast guideline for something so arbitrary. —Werson (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read all the posts. I was referring to the post of yours where you mentioned me by name and said I'd done something which I didn't do. I haven't taken your attitude as a personal attack, but there's no need to say "fuck you" to anyone - it's an instant switch-off. If "give it up, it's a fringe view" is usually what you get when you give your opinion, then maybe you come across as someone with fringe views. Using a more approachable tone would probably help. If your last sentence there is a precis of your entire view, then I think it's a fair view to have. Hard-and-fast guidelines are often not very helpful. That said, I do believe lists look better than tables. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If the one reason everyone agrees on is that they look better, and that's it, then fine.

I agree with the above statement myself. I think it looks better than a table and, in terms of copying to a program like Word, is easier to work with. I personally would copy the tracklist and omit the unneeded information manually because I do not mind doing this; I think, Werson, that the reason people are so upset with you ATM is because you started this series of posts with what came across as a whole lot of attitude by saying, "Tracklists must be in this format." Last I checked, coming across in this fashion makes you sound arrogant and very much like a butthole. "should" might have been a better word to use; we can then agree and disagree as we wish instead of attacking you, who is not even an admin., for the "must" comment. All I know is I'll continue to do my tracklists as I am now because they look good, and if I were to utilize a table, they'd look bad.

BTW, someone asked you for a page using such a table. You have yet to provide it. Can you please enlighten us? CycloneGU (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, coming across in this fashion makes you sound arrogant and very much like a butthole. "should" might have been a better word to use; we can then agree and disagree as we wish instead of attacking you, who is not even an admin., for the "must" comment.

Last I checked, we have a policy (WP:DR#Discuss) that says not to attack people even if their word choice bothers you. I think all the responses I've gotten so far have been in the bottom half of that chart. By the way, the very guideline we're debating has a link to such an article. —Werson (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm done

Those of you who are personally offended that I expressed my opinion clearly, or wasn't wishy-washy enough, might want to take a writing class. Attacking an author's "attitude" is not debating.

That said, I'll let this end now. I'm really not interested in listening to people call me a "butthole", I just want to debate a bad guideline. Thanks for those of you who actually tried to debate the issue rationally, I really do appreciate it. —Werson (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Werson, I was going to reply here, but I'm leaving a reply instead on your talk page as I don't want to drag this on here. Cheers. CycloneGU (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

related inquiry

I originally came here to ask a question along these same lines, so I hope nobody'll take offense at my hijacking this high-profile discussion for my own purposes.  :^) Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) and I are having this exact same discussion—not argument, fortunately—at the talk page of "Weird Al" Yankovic. Per this Project's guidelines, as well as FA-article precedent (94% use numbered lists as opposed to any other formatting), when I rebuilt this article I made use of a numbered list for track listings. It was since converted to tables, and instead of BRD, I skipped the R in the interest of open discussion instead of an edit war.

I would really appreciate it if any/all contributers here would mind weighing in on the discussion at Talk:"Weird_Al"_Yankovic_(album)#tables_v._numbered_lists, I would greatly appreciate it! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think any discussions on this matter need to be kept here. As for the the original argument, I was still waiting to see an example of so-called table, which was never provided. As for the Weird Al example given above, I honestly think this looks a bit of mess - too much information. The track listing should be clean and easy to see. Perhaps the extra info should be in a separate paragraph? I have an example of a table here: I Hear Talk, which I think looks okay, but is it any better than: Are You Ready (Bucks Fizz album) - which is in a list format simply because in this case - the same person produced all the tracks, so there is only need for a writer credit. I think the more info you try to pack into a track listing, the more cluttered it looks.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're specifically discussing one article there, so other contributers are discussing on that talk page duly. Specifically speaking though, there's a table (as well as six other) example being discussed at here. If you think the example at I Hear Talk warrants consideration for the "Weird Al" album, please consider providing your suggestions and examples to those who are only following the discussion where initiated. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Tuzapicabit, here's my opinion: the Are You Ready album is more tasteful to me. The interesting point about the I Hear Talk album is that there is a table and also a list of bonus tracks underneath of it. The bonus tracks list doesn't appeal to me much for one specific reason: different fonts and styles are used. There's no reason to shrink any of the text associated with something unless it's a discography table (then you might have, for example, "Islands in the Stream" (with Dolly Parton) in the table). Thus, I Hear Talk looks horrible while the other I would be more likely to learn something about. CycloneGU (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your views, I did have some reservations about the small text, but I try to let the song titles stand out. I'll look into it.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise (?)

What about the table used on Keeps Gettin' Better: A Decade of Hits? It's almost similar to the tracklist template, but more simple to fill out its contents. MaJic (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Somebody has replaced it with the tracklist template; the originbal can be viewed here. MaJic (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That does look nice, in fact, mainly because there are the five different versions of the album (four, actually, plus the DVD). I like that non-Americans can hide the versions they do not have and only show the one that applies to them. On the other hand, encyclopedias that are in a book don't have the show/hide feature; while it looks pretty, usually having an entire section of an article devoted to each album is my preference. This again, however, becomes a matter of personal opinion on behalf of any reader, and I do agree that the format on Aguilera's album is very nice.

Get that alternate cover sometime; it doesn't hurt to include it in the infobox. =) CycloneGU (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who created this template though. I'm wondering how I can get it to fit 2 CDs without making an separate tab. MaJic (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. Getting editors to agree on a consensus to it is another thing entirely :) MegX (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice and clean, but that's mainly because there are no writer/producer credits. These should be there really.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

i believe those could be typed in the note1, note2, etc. spaces. MaJic (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

CD Singles

So this may be a little confusing and at first you might say huh, but listen lol. So I propose we add CD Single to the albums infobox. This is because it is common in Greece to release a "CD Single" as they call it which is basically an EP. They chart as CD singles, have numbers as CD singles and are referred to as CD singles. The problem with the singles infobox is that it treats them as a song, while its more of a little album, for example Galazio Kai Lefko + Remixes is classified as a CD Single, but the title track was not even a single, only "Katapliktiko" for which a music video was made. Calling CDs like this an EP may be correct by definition, but then if its constantly referred to as a CD Single everywhere else then it makes no sense. So on the singles infobox it puts the quotes and also says "Single by Katy Garbi" by default, which it is not, it is a CD Single. Kind of confusing, but this is how it is in Greece, and possibly other places. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

So the disc is really an EP, but its manufacturers call it a CD Single? It definitely shouldn't be using the Single infobox, because it's not a single, even if they share the term. I hate to tell you you're going to have to go along with the rest of the world, especially since Wikipedia will then be different than how the record producers label their products, but calling it a single would be confusing to the rest of the Wikipedia users of the world. -Freekee (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully it is ok that I respond too. Here is where it gets confusing. They are called CD-singles as Grk1011 stated, but the also chart as CD singles by IFPI and are cataloged as such by their respective labels. Also technically singles and CD-singles are 2 different things. And it appears that the CD single page gives no real distinction on how many tracks it includes to be a CD-single, while the rest of the album recording pages really don't give any firm distinction either. (Most say something like it is usually the case, but it can differ)Greekboy (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no answers; I just thought I'd be a wiseguy by coming in and giving some examples to show that names for record formats make no sense, and have no consistency. A widely accepted definition of "E.P." is a record with more than two songs, but I have a 1950's 7 inch 45 rpm record on the RCA Victor label (they invented the E.P. format, so they should be able to dictate what it means) with one 6-minute piano piece on each side. Because of its length, and the fact it comes inside a hard cover, it's called an E.P., but it only has two songs. Now consider that the word "single" is a misnomer; it doesn't have just a single song on it (excepting rare one-sided records). Now consider explaining to a kid who knows nothing about the history of records before CDs, why a disc containing Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, and nothing else, is called an album. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing Category?

There's a category for albums with unlisted tracks - fair enough.

Is there a need for a category of albums - only possible on Vinyl I guess - for albums with parallel groove recording.. I know of two. One is a Monty Python album (someone's bound to know which one!), and the other is a 12" by M (the B-Side of Pop Muzik) - I have this in my collection.

By parallel I mean that instead of one continuous groove on the side of the vinyl, there are two parallel ones (see note) - and whichever one plays depends on the serendipity of the fall of the needle.

I know that technically the grooves are not parallel in the pedantic mathematical sense, but it's a colloquial meaning that will be easy to understand.

SDC 4th January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.120.187 (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You can create a category if you like, and see what happens. Categories are scrutenized just like articles, and can be nominated for deletion. It might be better to create an article about the subject first, or add a section to an existing article about LPs (presuming an article or section doesn't already exist; I haven't looked). I have heard this called a parallel groove and double groove. The Monty Python album (since you asked) is The Monty Python Matching Tie and Handkerchief and the article is not categorized for its groove. Other records like this are Roman P. which has 2 grooves and one of them has completely different spoken word material in each stereo channel, inviting the listener to hear one at a time, so it essentially has 3 sides on one side; You're the Guy I Want to Share My Money With with 3 parallel grooves on 1 side; and It's a Super-Spectacular Day with 8 grooves! (I have all of these, and the Monty Python record, but not the M record.) (I've also heard about a Cheech and Chong record with a double groove, but there is no mention of it on WP, so this may be a fake rumour.) Another similar subject is a side that ends in a locked groove, where the last 2 seconds of the music play on forever. I have at least a dozen of these! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

For more information, see Unusual types of gramophone records -Freekee (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see Unusual types of gramophone records fits the need. Oddly though I'm sure I'd searched for "parallel grooves" before making my suggestion. 203.206.118.251 (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)SDC 6th Jan 09

Translation of foreign album article titles

Could I get some comments at an article move request at Talk:We Want Gusle that has wider implications for album titles, specifically, whether foreign language albums' titles should be translated or not. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 02:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

About capitalisation

Hi,

The Capitalisation rules (WP:ALBUMCAPS) should, in my opinion, add this rule from the MusicBrainz Wiki: [3] When capitalizing song titles, album titles, or artist names, the appropriate grammatical rules for the language the text is written in should be applied unless it can be shown that that the artist wishes the capitalization to be grammatically incorrect, in which case the artist's version of the title or name is the correct one to use.

Because if we keep the actual rules, we are having wrong article titles, like on Life in Technicolor II, where it can be seen that MusicBrainz lists it as ii, the Coldplay site lists it as ii, and the back of the album's sleeve also lists it as ii.

Thank you.   ≤  ^alvareo  [talk to me]  ≥  19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

While I would agree in some cases, I'm not sure about the example you quoted. Clearly "ii" means "II" or "two", and the difference is not so much grammatical as typeface style. In this case I would prefer to see it shown as "II". An exception might be made if the group stated a reason for the difference, i.e. if it has special meaning. But I have seen some albums with all the song titles printed in lower case, for example (actually there were some German record companies in the 1970s who did this by default), and it would not be appropriate to emulate that style here. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you see the back of the album, all song titles are written in small caps, but what comes out is the fact that "ii" is written on lowercase, which means the band actually wanted it to be like that. And also, the single cover is in all-caps, with the exception of ii. So your comparison with all-lowercase tracklists doesn't match in this case. Because yeah, I know quite a few albums which have an ALL CAPS tracklist, which doesn't mean the songs names should be all-caps. Unless MusicBrainz also listed them as all-caps, the official site too, and an eventual single's cover and tracklist did too.

≤ ^alvareo [speak to me] ≥ 04:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:MUSTARD already derives some of its rationale for subjecting artist and band names to standard capitalization rules from WP:MOSTM, and the same reasoning about consistency and undue attention certainly applies to album and song titles as well. You might also want to consider accessibility, that is, what effect nonstandard formatting could potentially have on the output of screen readers. If a given title's stylized formatting is indeed notable, simply mentioning it in an unobtrusive fashion within the first few sentences of the article is usually a good compromise. See Year Zero Remixed for an example. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 00:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D would hurt eyes, but Life in Technicolor ii doesn't make any unpleasant difference. In my opinion, ...Technicolor ii even looks prettier than ...Technicolor II. ≤ ^alvareo [speak to me] ≥ 05:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What about camelcase? eg. FireHouse (band). MUSTARD states "Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists", which one would assume means FireHouse is in breach of MUSTARD. MegX (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely is, and should be moved. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 01:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that's true, under current rules. But here is one example where this proposed rule change makes sense. Presuming the band always spells their name this way, and since "camelcase" is a recognized commercial style of printing, there is a good argument to be made for using this spelling at WP. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, "...in breach of MUSTARD" does not automatically lead to "...should be moved". MUSTARD says at the top of its page that it is a guideline, and is therefore not a set of rules to which no exceptions are permitted. Common sense should tell us when we can make exceptions. The question is whether certain exceptions should be spelled out. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

CamelCase "However, camel case is rarely used in formal written English, and most style guides recommend against its use." MegX (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That sentence is preceeded by: "Camel case ... has become fashionable in marketing for names of products and companies". Should a band name or song title in a WP article follow the rules of "formal written English" in this instance, when the more fashionable usage is clearly intented by the band? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And another thing: What's the title of this page again? :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, all articles should reflect the real name unless:

1. It looks unpleasant and diificult to understand easily (like Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D)
2. It conflicts with Wikipedia's pages (like for example, a band called Special:Preferences) or with any other thing (like that album called something like LOL <(. .)>

FireHouse doesn't affect anything, and it should stay that way.

≤ ^alvareo [speak to me] ≥ 05:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On a historical note, camelcase used to be used by the first version of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:CamelCase and Wikipedia. I would suggest the name of the article can be put down to yet another unfortunate inconsistency in Wikipedia. :) MegX (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, since WP:MUSTARD cites WP:MOSTM, let's see what that guideline has to say about CamelCase: CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable (emphasis mine) – hence it would merit to check with independent, third-party sources to see if capitalizing the 'h' in that band name has gained wider acceptance. Allmusic for instance does not do it, neither do Rolling Stone or the NY Times . – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 12:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cyrus. I believe we had previous long debates before on KISS, CHIC, and matchbox twenty. MUSTARD won out on all occassions. MegX (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How about his one: diana (album)? Seems a bit unnecessary to me.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 17:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed janet. too... MegX (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)