Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice

RfC about Metacritic in Critical Reception sections
Critical reception sections in many music articles begin with a reference to Metacritic. Example - "American Beauty/American Psycho received mostly positive reviews upon its release. The aggregate review site Metacritic gave the album a 72 out of 100 based on 15 reviews."

Where does a reference to Metacritic typically belong in a Critical Reception section? At the Beginning or in the Body? -DaxMoon (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * Body Having the section start with Metacritic provides nothing of substance to the reader and it effectively gives Metacritic, and their assigned 'normalized rating', a supervote as to the album's overall merit. Metacritic's ratings are not completely objective. Critics are selected (some given more significance "because of their stature"), the reviews are then interpreted converting it into a 1-100 etc. etc. Also, WikiProject Film's manual of style has addressed this issue and I find their reasoning persuasive. Per and WP:AGG, "Commentary should... be sought from reliable sources for critics' consensus of the film." Such commentary should come before reporting aggregate scores because such sources are likely to be more authoritative and to provide descriptive prose. The aggregate scores can complement this commentary. Single-number "averages" of opinion can be insufficient on their own, especially where there is a wide diversity of opinion about a film. For example, a reviewer may consider a film to be excellent for kids, but awful for adults; this should be addressed in prose. -DaxMoon (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: at present you are talking about not having Metacritic at the top of the prose in the "Critical reception" section... where do you stand on Metacritic being at the top of the album ratings table, and if you don't agree with it being at the top, where would you put it instead? Richard3120 (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think not only should you post a notification at WT:ALBUMS (which gets a lot more traffic than here), but in fact it might have been better to start a discussion there first, rather than go straight to an RfC. You raise some good points, and your comparison with the WP:FILM approach touches on concerns I've long had about why it is that here on Albums, we have to make such a feature of both these aggregate scores and (especially) formal ratings that we set in a box, when, from what I see in article main space, films and books do not have reviewer ratings boxes. On that last point, featuring 10 (max.) formally rated album reviews in this way – meaning that we're obliged to represent them in prose and, logically, at the expense of just as many non-formally rated reviews – can often result in a skewering of the overall critical opinion. It can also diminish the quality of the reception section, because "reviews" from Rolling Stone and MusicHound album guides, Larkin's Encyclopaedia of Popular Music, etc. usually offer very little on each album, as each artist's entry is more often a history of their career with brief stopovers on their albums (and sometimes with an album or two completely ignored) – or at least, they offer very little that's not already been mentioned in sections discussing background/inspiration, the album's songs, recording, release, promotion and commercial impact. JG66 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Whattup . Long time reader first year editor. Reading Wikipedia over the years I noticed more and more Metacritic scores at the top of critical reception sections and I think it's awful. An article about a complex piece of art with nuance and character and unique flavor. And the critical reception says this piece of art is this number. It is so gross. Think about it. If it were a painting would we average reviews and have that at the top of critical response? Here's Van Gogh's Starry Night which critics gave an average score of 82 meaning mostly positive reviews. It sounds terrible. Anyways. Sorry for the rant. How do I get this issue somewhere it will be talked about and I can try to get consensus? Thanks bud. -DaxMoon (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my lack of response before now – the problem is, for me, that this is one part of a wide-ranging issue to do with the whole approach applied here to an album's critical reception. This is why I said your concerns should possibly be raised first for discussion at WT:ALBUMS, instead of launching straight into an RfC here. My main beef – because and when it distorts the picture of whether reception is generally favourable/mixed/unfavourable – is the reliance on formal ratings in a reviews ratings box, for the reasons mentioned already, also because a rating might not even be an accurate reflection of that publication's view when several of their articles and reviews are taken into consideration. I'm talking about albums released decades ago and the ratings box being used in a section covering the album's latter-day critical standing.
 * There's an overlap there with your points, but you're asking specifically about the inclusion and location of a Metacritic score. As far as it registers for me, I don't have a problem with the MC score appearing early in the prose, necessarily, but I do with its inclusion in the reviewer ratings box. It's as if for albums (computer games too, I imagine), we've allowed articles to heighten the most base, shorthand aspects of the coverage a subject has attracted; I can understand the inclusion of these aspects in the article – because they're reflective of the language applied to them – but it's the highlighting of scores and ratings that I think is way off. Professional reviewer ratings and aggregate scores are commonplace for TV shows (which I think it's safe to say are no more "lowbrow" culturally than pop music and computer games), but that doesn't mean articles on TV shows include ratings boxes, with a Rotten Tomatoes score, as the visually dominant element of the section. The prose mentions these numerical indicators, sure – and that's fine because such an approach avoids allowing a boxed presentation to visually define the topic. JG66 (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * you're all good brother. No rush. I find it's good to let these sort of considerations marinate. Allows the mind some space. That you think MC early in the prose is ok is a bit curious to me. I don't see how it doesn't suffer from your well founded criticisms as well. It couldn't be more base and shorthand coverage. It's a number alone. Hadn't thought about the ratings boxes like that. I agree with you.DaxMoon (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Beginning By giving the reader an aggregated view, the way it is done with articles about films, it gives the reader a sense of the remainder of the reviews. A link to Metacritic will then list all of the reviewers, which is already more extensive and vetted in better and more consistent way than we do. Overall, the reader is benefited. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - Never been a fan of it, never added it to an article, I don't think (although I've added missing citations to it). I do think stars and grades and symbols, etc., are important and useful--that's music journalism practice going back to at least the 1950s. Looking at our film style guide may not be great, or going off how they do things; unlike silly, frivolous, vulgar pop music, film has historically been regarded as a more serious artistic medium. To choose a pretentious example, The New Yorker never really engaged with "pop" music until the 1990s, but thought it was a good idea for Pauline Kael (who I don't really like) to weigh in on Sheena, instead of having a critic write about Run-DMC, or the Minutemen, or Linton Kwesi Johnson. I put a lot of grades in the box, and I also flesh out the prose, including using NYT, Trouser Press, etc., which don't grade. As JG66, pointed out, Larkin and MusicHound and The Rolling Stone Album Guide often just assign a rating ... but they also occasionally have a more incisive comment to make about an album than, to use another pretentious example, Greil Marcus (who I do like). And these are encyclopedic entries, not scholarly articles; if grades and stars act as visual shorthand, that's fine, so long as the article is not just a sentence with one to 10 ratings in a box (which does happen). Caro7200 (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hang on,, "I do think stars and grades and symbols, etc., are important and useful--that's music journalism practice going back to at least the 1950s" – where are you getting that from? There are a few examples of that, but I'd say it was most definitely not music journalism practice to formally rate an album release back then and not for a few decades afterwards. Otherwise, we'd have no problem providing contemporaneous ratings boxes for classic rock albums from the 1960s and '70s, but we don't have them, for the very reason that reviewers did not use them for the most part. From what I've seen, it started to become more commonplace in the '80s, but it was still far from standard. Even in the early '00s, publications like Mojo, Record Collector, AV Club, Goldmine, PopMatters, The Guardian and more didn't use them. And even nowadays, you can find a publication rates a boxset of reissued albums but they're inconsistent about whether they also rate the individual albums in the set – that is, they will in some cases but not always in the same issue. JG66 (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course, JG66, most didn't, although Billboard, Christgau, and some jazz mags did. Rolling Stone and Spin didn't at first--or for a bit--but their guides from the '70s to the '90s often used the same writers as the mags, and were printed frequently enough, like RS, or right as "alternative" was peaking, like Spin, so that the reviews weren't completely ossified yet (although claims on Wikipedia that critical opinion becomes ossified or standardized sometimes strike me as OR). Caro7200 (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment, excellent question. I wish I put that in the RfC (am I still allowed to?). I think it should be at the bottom of the Album Ratings table. It's an aggregate rating made up of other ratings. Thus, it makes sense to see the other scores first and then see the aggregate made from all those scores. Sort of like a math problem You see all the numbers that make up the result. They are added together (or multiplied etc.). And you have the result. You have the ingredients. Put them together. And then you have a pie etc. , thanks for the heads up. I posted a notification in WT:ALBUMS. Also, I think you raise an excellent point re non-formally rated reviews. Often these reviews have the most careful thought. Such that it would be degrading the review to dumb it down to a number. Finally, when people look for reviews for an album I believe they look to other websites more than they look to Metacritic. Putting it at the top of everything gives the source undue weight. For example, Metacritic has a #2,416 ranking on Alexa. Rolling Stone is #1,744. -DaxMoon (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

A plea to JG66
Now that I've marinated in wikiworld I sense a bit of... intractable machinery. , my fellow Metacritic critic, may we put our musings to task? I'd like to ask you a favor. You see the import of this issue. You have reasoned, reasonably dispassionate opinions. You know wikilaw. , would you help me start an RFC or discussion at WT:ALBUMS? -DaxMoon (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * wow, "You know wikilaw" – I don't know about that(!), I know the spirit and try to keep to that ... WP:RFC explains the RfC process, and I'm afraid I've had very little experience in starting one.
 * Just to repeat (well, I hope it's consistent with what I've said above): my main opposition to elevating Metacritic's presence is in situations when their sample of reviews might be pretty limited (say, to just 6–8), and they omit a well-known publication or two that usually they would include, and their assessment appears to skewer the overall picture because secondary sources might say something different about an album's critical reception. This is down to personal experience and the type of music articles one works on here, of course. I mostly focus on albums and songs from the '60s and early '70s, so I'm confused about why we allow individual reviewer ratings – because they're formal ratings, which we then have to represent in prose – to trump often better-known or more notable reviews that are often far more expansive but don't use letters, numbers or stars. (The blink-and-you-miss-it sentence or two in album guides or the Encyclopedia of Popular Music are the worst offenders, imo, because they're hardly reviews as such, just career overviews accompanied by star or letter ratings.) There's usually space in the text for some non-rated reviews too, yes, but the underlying message is that the formally rated reviews take precedence; there's only limited space in an article, after all. So, you roll that on to the issue of critical reception generally and MC's assessment ends up towering over what secondary sources (artist biographies, music reference books) might give, in terms of its presence on the page – the MC score is usually mentioned early on in the text and, even worse, imo, it's afforded a grand place at the top of the reviewer ratings box.
 * I appreciate most editors probably wouldn't experience this so it wouldn't be a concern. JG66 (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , excellent points. You illustrate the issue at the heart of the whole thing. I have particular disdain for reception sections that start with Metacritic's point and "generally positive reviews" and the like. DaxMoon (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Alternative track listing
I have seen different editors war over the interpretation of Wikipedia standard over this, and I'm not going to argue one way or the other, but I want it made more explicitly clear: when we talk about alternative track listings not being listed on an album's page, are we just talking about a) alternate track listings to the main album (e.g. American track listings to British albums in the sixties, etc.), or are we also talking b) bonus discs of outtakes?

I've seen one interpretation be that it's just about alternate track listing toe the album itself so that we're not inundated with listings from different regions, while at the same time being inclusive of outtake discs, and I've seen other users advocate for the removal of all director's cut/bonus material that is not mentioned in detail in the article (which seems a little like a catch-22 since if it's mentioned in the article it would be redundant in the track listing).

Personally I'm for including outtake discs as it is often though not always the author of the album who wants to give a more expansive view of the project, and it doesn't clutter the focus of the original album's track listing the way alternate track listings of the main album does (which I'm guessing was the intent of the original guideline), but I'm easy either way. I just want to know what the standard is explicitly, since it comes across to me as ambiguous in the current article (or I'm missing the clarification). YouCanDoBetter (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There was an RfC several months ago (WT:MOSMUSIC). Perhaps pinging some of those participants would be helpful, since this page gets very little attention. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Tracklist sourcing and other
WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice Why there is only mentioned about sourcing by physical copy of release with Cite AV media notes? There are digital versions of releases with tracklists and credits and I would say they are easier to access and they should replace physical versions or atleast support them if not all information is available on digital version. Eurohunter (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of singles charts in album articles
This is a discussion to decide whether or not album articles should include singles chart tables and chart positions in article Charts sections. North America1000 08:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

,, , and I have been involved in a bit of edit warring here on This Is It (Jack Ingram album). I feel that the album article should not include a table of the singles and their chart positions for a number of reasons:
 * 1) MOS:ALBUM does not mention doing so at any point
 * 2) Doing so is redundant to the artist's discography tables
 * 3) Doing so may start edit wars on which charts should or should not be included
 * 4) GA- and FA-class album articles do not include them

However, the other three editors named above feel that it's valid, sourced information that can be beneficial to the reader. So I'd like to reach a consensus: should the singles discography of albums be included at all in album articles? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Also pinging, , , , , and other editors with experience in this field. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No, I believe the charts themselves should only be present in the song and discography articles, especially when both exist. I'm not opposed to a brief mention of a notable chart position of a song in the prose of a "release and promotion" section if it did particularly well somewhere, and/or if it's a barely notable album with and the singles were one of the few stand out aspects or something. Sergecross73   msg me  20:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Compare Live: Wherever You Are, which does not have a singles table but features a passage indicating both charted singles and the fact that one of them was the first #1 hit for the label. I think that is sufficient for that album, and should set the precedent for all of Ingram's other albums. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was struggling to think of a strong example, but that's exactly it. That's a good example of how to do it and keep it short and sweet. Sergecross73   msg me  22:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree, mostly, with Serge, if song and discography articles exist. I often mention chart positions for singles in prose, but most of the albums I start articles for either didn't chart or charted well outside the top 40 (or 100, for that matter). Caro7200 (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's my rundown, in the same order as the numbered points in the nomination:
 * WP:MOSALBUM also says nothing about omitting singles information
 * Barely mentioned so far are instances where no discography or song article exists. If this is the case, the I feel that Singles and charting information should be included on album articles. Otherwise, there would eventually be no singles information at all on Wikipedia other than in individual single album articles. Why would we want to build an incomplete encyclopedia?
 * While there was disagreement about one article mentioned atop, I'm not seeing a high potential for ongoing edit wars broadly construed over many pages. Where is the evidence of this?
 * Contrary to the nomination atop, some recognized articles do have singles charts and charting positions, such as the WP:GA-class Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music and 1984 (Van Halen album). In this regard, the notion that all "GA- and FA-class album articles do not include them" is entirely incorrect. Additionally, some GA-class articles have entire sections devoted to singles, such as Dangerous (Michael Jackson album) and Folklore (Taylor Swift album).


 * Also, some articles have singles information in their infoboxes. Does this proposal also call for the removal of singles content from infoboxes, or only from Charts sections? North America1000 22:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have seen "singles" sections which denote where they charted. I have not seen an instance where the discography does not exist. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The couple good excuses I can imagine are for just-over-the-edge notability like Serge mentioned, and in the case of This Is It that the table is quite small and undisruptive to the article. However, it's certainly something worth questioning even when it is that small, because allowing that as an argument could open up arguments for much larger tables that would get disruptive, and perhaps it's better to keep the floodgates closed in this instance. It's far too easy for a table like that to balloon out of control given the right circumstances.
 * Yeah, I'd say I'm in agreeance with TPH here. Those tables already have presence elsewhere so the info isn't lost for not having it here, and the explicit pertinence of them in an album article is generally questionable enough that it opens up far too many potential edge cases to be worth allowing. Nix it, I say.
 * As for User:Northamerica1000's question above, TPH's original post doesn't say anything about infoboxes so I would assume no, but if that's wrong then I will say here that I explicitly disagree with that notion and think singles in infoboxes are perfectly fine. QuietHere (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This_Is_It_(Jack_Ingram_album) shows how everything fits well together. If you mention an album and how it charted, you should mention the Peak chart positions of the singles from that album as well.  Anyone who would be interested in the information of how the album charted would be curious about its singles also.  The conversation is at User_talk:Northamerica1000.  As I mentioned there, if the information was going to be too long such as 1989_(Taylor_Swift_album) and then every single's article has a long bit such as at Shake_It_Off, then obviously the information about the singles wouldn't fit in the album article.  Totally different situations here.  We can edit the relevant guidelines to mention this.   D r e a m Focus  01:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Achtung Baby is a FA-class article that I've used as a reference to what an acceptable album article look like. It mentioned peak chart positions for singles in both prose and table format. I don't see any issues with it. The singles spawned from the album, and was used to promote the album, removing it will make the article incomplete.  Lulusword   (talk)  04:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem I see is that it's massively overdone in country music articles. I suspect it was started by a small number of chart watchers (there are a lot of them in country) and just spread from there. I'm trying to cut down on chart-watcher cruft where i can. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since this has become a full-blown RfC, I will elaborate more on my thought. Songs that did not pass WP:NSONGS will have their articles redirected to their respective album articles. It should make sense that minimal informations about the songs such as their writers, their release dates (for singles) and their charting positions to be mentioned in the album articles. Lulusword   (talk)  03:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * An additional issue is that singles listed in infoboxes presently do not display chart positions. So, if that information is omitted from Charts sections in articles, then WP:READERS will be missing out that information, which some will find to be of value, ultimately creating an incomplete encyclopedia. I don't view singles content and chart positions as "cruft". Indeed, we have entire articles devoted just to singles, such as Rihanna singles discography, a Featured list article. North America1000 08:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If the information is already in the discography page, does it need to be restated elsewhere? I can't think of an instance where a notable artist is outright missing a singles discography, either on their main page or in an "X discography" subpage. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some good points made above. I've always found the singles chart boxes at the bottom of articles to "look" better than the singles release date boxes under the album infobox—and the chart boxes are generally better referenced than the release date ones (a persistent problem). Part of the issue may be the many ways industry/artists have used singles over the decades to promote albums ... Caro7200 (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not see the point in having singles tables in album articles. The article is not about the single it is about the album. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The chart positions for the singles belong in the Wikipedia articles for the singles. They don't need to be in the Wikipedia article for the album. NE0mAn7o! (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But what about situations where no singles article exists? North America1000 11:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In those cases I think a page could be created for each single, and then the chart info added to those pages NE0mAn7o! (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Cheers So, rather than having editors place singles information quickly, easily and succinctly in album articles, you're saying that we should instead have to create new article pages for each and every single. Seems like a bunch of extra work, whereas simply including basic single information and chart placements in album articles is so much easier. So, where are all of the editors that will magically come forward to create a gigantic plethora of singles articles? It's one thing to state what volunteers on Wikipedia should do, but it's another thing to expect volunteers to jump through a bunch of hoops because, gast, singles content just can't be in album article for whatever arbitrary reasons. Also what if the singles don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? In those cases, it would then become a black hole in Wikipedia, omitting singles information because they don't qualify for standalone articles, and omitting them because some folks just don't want singles information in articles, for arbitrary reasons. How does this build a functional encycopedia? North America1000 11:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if a given single isn't notable outside of whatever charting placement it managed to grab then that charting info on its own likely isn't notable enough to be worth including on the site anyway. Might this fall under WP:NOTSTATS? QuietHere (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For me personally it's a structural matter. A functional encyclopaedia can come from working with consistent structures. In reviewing the discussion here, and reviewing the pros and cons, it seemed to me that inclusion of singles chart placements could significantly disrupt consistent structure and risk more 'warring'. Hence, my initial comment. I'm not wanting to create extra work for anyone. NE0mAn7o! (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I get it, a consistency angle that all articles must be structured the same. However, encyclopedic content that educates WP:READERS should not be omitted so that all articles "look the same". It's a perfectionist notion that everything should be alike, but what about educating people? The omission of encyclopedic content for the sake of consistent layout across thousands of articles comes across to me as creating a dumbed-down encyclopedia, for the sake of layout consistency. Creating pretty pages that have exacting identical layouts for the sake of "consistency", and that notion used as a means to omit meaningful data, would be a disservice to readers. North America1000 13:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 *  Support inclusion - I support the inclusion of single charts and discographies in album articles, in a manner similar to that of the discography articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, I support inclusion of singles chart tables, chart positions and discographies in album articles. North America1000 11:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Track title stylizations
Is this something that has to be mentioned under a track listing? If the song title is actually in all uppercase, or if it contains special symbols, should a note under the tracklist like "stylized in all uppercase" or "stylized as Br0k3n but Not $tupid" be included? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd love an answer on this question - it applies to articles I've worked on like Hail to the Thief (see the tracklist) and FeelingPulledApartByHorses / TheHollowEarth. Popcornfud (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've always taken MOS:TMSTYLE as applying to track listings the same way it would to an album's name. There's nothing in that policy that would suggest otherwise to me so that's how I've been using it, like with the note at the top of Forever Music. QuietHere (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"Only source a track listing if ..."
At Album article style advice: Track listing: Sourcing it says, "Only source a track listing if there are exceptional circumstances, such as a dispute about the writers of a certain track." Does this mean, "Only provide a citation for a track listing if ...", or "Only include a track listing in the article if ..."? I assume it's the former, but if so, it is worded ambiguously. Nurg (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I also understand it as the former, though I don't find it nearly as ambiguous. QuietHere (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated to clarify ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Nurg (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Self titled albums
Could anyone here perhaps visit Talk:LeAnn Rimes (album) for a discussion about how to phrase the opening of articles about self-titled albums? Not looking for a particular opinion, just those in the know about policies or general practice in the area. Thanks 331dot (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"By", "on", "via", or "through" a record label?
I've never got a handle on which to use. "Through" has long been my stylistic preference, since an album is already by an artist and released on a date. "Via" looks a bit janky. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed that those are least clunky, especially if one sentence says all of these three things. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * An album is made "by" musicians but released "by" a record label, or at least that's how I see it. I'm not sure any of these options are particularly wrong though, so I say just go with your gut. QuietHere (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Track Listings and “Primarily Released on CD”
I’m trying to figure out the particulars of the rules on whether track listings should be broken into sides or not, and not finding the guidance of “for albums that were primarily released on CD” terribly helpful. Do we just use the 1988 cutoff of when CD sales outpaced vinyl to determine what an album’s primary medium was? Is there some actual sourcing consulted for sales? Is it just vibes? El Sandifer (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The whole rule of thumb is arbitrary and in my opinion, very poorly thought out and confusing. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I would vote towards doing away with sides altogether as they're not really important. We should keep tracklists minimal. They too often spin off into discogs-style clutter, data for the sake of data, which isn't the purview of Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I could not disagree more with the takes above, which seem quite anachronistic. Just because sides are not relevant now, that does not mean they are unimportant. In fact, in the days of LPs, sides were especially important in determining sequencing of an album's best tracks.  Tkbrett  (✉) 23:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For LPs, which song closes side one and which opens side two shows their relative importance in relation to other album tracks. The wording regarding CDs could be improved, but the "albums originally released primarily on vinyl or cassette should list the tracks of each side separately under sub-headings named "Side one", "Side two", etc." seems OK. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with LP sides, but for some reason this pointy IP did. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree strongly. For an album created and structured for vinyl, the position of the side flip is an important and informative part of the track listing. To pick an example where it’s almost unthinkable to not include the information, Low (David Bowie album) is structured entirely around the side flip.
 * I’d pitch a simple cutoff date: CDs outpaced vinyl in 1988, so albums from 1989 on are treated as primarily CD albums, while albums before 1989 gets side info. El Sandifer (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Could the sides divide not just be referenced in prose in the track listing section? e.g. for Low you could write "On the vinyl version of the album, side A consists of tracks 1-7 and side B consists of 8-11." That'd preserve the information, get it across clearly enough, and allow for standardization if that's what's preferred. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 01:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess, but I meant it more as an example of one where the amount of information lost by not acknowledging the side flip is especially high as opposed to a special case. To my mind, for an album where vinyl was the primary original medium we should just talk about the vinyl version as the primary version. I think a 1988 or so dividing line is a perfectly fine level of standardization. El Sandifer (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm the person that implemented the changes to the style guide re: album sides after several discussions (and discussion attempts), most recently here. I agree the prose could use a bit more clarification, but that was the best we could (more or less) agree upon at the time. FWIW, I generally use the 1988 dividing line as well, although one could make the case that the cutoff should be even later, as I've encountered several articles that state cassettes took over as the predominant format until CDs overtook them around 1992 or 1993. The Keymaster (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

"On the album" or "in the album"?
A new editor has just changed the wording on the album article Dogs in the Traffic and it's made me wonder if there's any consensus on whether it should be "on the album" or "in the album".

In context: "One of the tracks from the album, "Pappa Death", would be included on/in Dogs in the Traffic."

Searching on Wikipedia, there's far more results for "on" and, in all my years of editing, I've not come across using "in" before. It doesn't sound right to me. Ajsmith141 (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * My instinct there would be to use "on". I can't remember ever reading "in" in that particular context. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 12:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "on". There's no definitive rule for choosing prepositions. But "on" is generally used for flat surfaces (on the wall, on the floor, on the page, on the screen). As albums always started out as flat surfaces — records — that's probably why "on the album" emerged as the dominant preposition. Popcornfud (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with both the comments here, thanks for the input and thanks to Popcornfud for editing the article. Ajsmith141 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Alternate track listings
I disagree with the notion of omitting deluxe tracks from albums. It is unhelpful and an obstruction to free knowledge. SO how can I go about reversing the dumbest policy in Wikipedia history? I would like a breakdown of this. I can also link 1,000 pages that would need to be corrected because they include Deluxe tracks. And that is no hyperbole or exaggeration, I truly do mean at least 1,000 just off the top of my head. Jackie Stuntmaster (talk) 05:13, January 17, 2024‎ (UTC)
 * I know not of any such policy. I could easily point out a dozen albums with deluxe releases where the additional tracks are included in the track listing section (separated in a way to make it clear which tracks were on the original release), and I can't think of a time where I've ever seen anyone object to that, nor where I have objected to it myself. Do you have any specific examples in mind? QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 05:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Many. E.g. A Charlie Brown Christmas (soundtrack). ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Jackie is referring to WP:ALTTRACKLIST.
 * I was the editor who proposed that guideline a couple of years ago, or whenever it was added. I feel bonus tracks, alternative track lists etc are usually cruft, and contrary to the goals of Wikipedia, which should not be an indiscriminate list of stuff. Without this policy, the tracklist sections of pages for classic albums were out of control, documenting track lists for every bonus edition, live tracks, demos, box sets etc. People who want to know every permutation of every release can check out Discogs. Popcornfud (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Is omitting bonus tracks mentioned on this "Album article style advice" page? — Mudwater (Talk) 11:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, under WP:ALTTRACKLIST. (Well, it doesn't specifically use the word "bonus" but that's still the intent of the guideline. No bonus tracks, deluxe editions, etc. The point is to just stick to the main tracklist.) Popcornfud (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I would be in favor of removing that.  Track listings for alternate editions would generally be of interest to our readers.  And in most cases there are a very small number of alternate track listings -- one, or just a few.  So I think that for most albums, alternate track listings are actually a plus.  However there would be some albums with many such track listings, where it would in fact make the article better to omit them.  To summarize, let's (1) take that part out of the style guide / advice page, and (2) often include alternate track listings in album articles, but sometimes omit them, on an article-by-article basis, and as decided by local editors.  — Mudwater (Talk) 12:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose that change, because I think the current solution is simpler, and I don't think "of interest to readers" is in itself a great justification to include anything on Wikipedia. For example, recipes, how-to-guides, software release notes, movie trivia, funny quotes etc is all likely to be of interest to many people, but we define them as out of scope for the project. Popcornfud (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * What I meant was that in many cases alternative track listings would be of interest to our readers and also are appropriate for the scope and style of Wikipedia articles. In most cases they are not fancruft or an indiscriminate list of stuff, rather they are appropriate for an encyclopedia article about an album, and fall well within Wikipedia guidelines.  However in a minority of cases it would be better to omit them, for various reasons, including but not limited to there being a lot of them. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's definitely something people seem to see one way or another, so if the consensus moves to remove this guideline, I'll live with that. Popcornfud (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I would love to remove this guideline. I don't know how to go about it but it is a thousand times more informative to break down deluxe pressings, re-releases, regional differences, and platform differences (specially now more than ever, vinyl vs CD vs streaming releases all have different track lists orders). For example, If Looks Could Kill (Destroy Lonely album) has different tracks depending on if you're listening on CD, vinyl or on streaming. Explaining that in an article would be cumbersome where a tracklist format would put it in an easily digestible way Jackie Stuntmaster (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * break down deluxe pressings, re-releases, regional differences, and platform differences
 * I'm sorry but this is the kind of thing that makes me suck my teeth. We should resist the urge to nerdishly catalog every variation of a musical release, it's not what Wikipedia is for. Go to Discogs or fan wikis for that. Popcornfud (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm siding with Popcornfud here. I think the standard is perfectly reasonable, especially given most of the time those differences can be explained in prose instead. It's Almost Dry is a great example (and one where I personally removed the additional list) where just two sentences right below the list explain the different versions in a far more compact space than if we'd left up two whole other templates for them. The real estate concern is a big one here, especially when using track listing. I think the language of WP:ALTTRACKLIST is just fine as is. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 17:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm generally with Popcornfud and QuietHere. My understanding is this policy came about largely because of album pages where endless alternate track listings were taking up the majority of the page, which is certainly a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. My only quibble with WP:ALTTRACKLIST is that the language is a little confusing. The first paragraph says only to list an alternate listing if it's significantly different and is discussed in the article...but the second says alternates can be listed in sub-headings or just summarized in the prose.
 * If an album had significantly different track listings in different territories, or went through various permutations (see the headache-inducing The Golden Age of Wireless, for example, where the hit version that most people are familiar with was the third variation), I do think it's helpful to list the various track listings, but that is a very rare exception. Conversely, there are the Monkees albums pages (for example, Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd.) where the endless track listings and personnel listings take up 3/4ths of the page. (Those are way overdue for pruning, IMHO.) Then there are borderline cases, like Freedom of Choice, where I tried to pare down the existing track listings to something much more coherent and readable (it was 10x worse before). In retrospect, I wouldn't mind just nuking those bonus track sections entirely.
 * This issue should probably be taken on a case by case basis and done carefully, but I find that, more often than not, the alternate track listings are just an unnecessary eyesore. The Keymaster (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also be in favour of removing the WP:ALTTRACKLIST guideline, per arguments mentioned above. This type of information should generally not be withhheld from readers. Lk95 (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But valuable information isn't being withheld because of ALTTRACKLIST. All it asks for is significant difference and extensive commentary, and I don't think either of those standards are unreasonable. Those same standards are applied all over this site and meet just right with the encyclopedic mission. Removing ALTTRACKLIST could open the floodgates to a bunch of crap that we have no need or appropriate sourcing for that would just bog down articles. Minor differences in track lists between editions can be found elsewhere in places like Discogs, and we allow Discogs ELs already so even that is handled. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 14:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd be more persuaded by arguments along the lines of "here's why alternative tracklists are consistent with the policies and goals of Wikipedia" rather than "people want alternative tracklists and we should provide them". Like I said before, people also want delicious recipes, but that's not what this website is for... Popcornfud (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I've posted about this discussion on the WikiProject Albums talk page, with this edit, in the hope that more editors will join the discussion here. — Mudwater (Talk) 18:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I come from a heavy hip hop background and I realize not everyone is up to par on the latest state of streaming in the music industry, and also other genres probably aren't as intergrated with the era of deluxe pressings so let me try and set some examples.


 * In the case of If Looks Could Kill (Destroy Lonely album), the track list is different whether you're on CD, vinyl, iTunes or streaming platform. What would be the standard? If the policy is to include only the "normal" pressing and not deluxe, what IS the normal pressing? There is none, it's different on every platform. Are we gonna dictate the CD format is the normal format? That opens another list of problems.
 * In the case of Hndrxx, Future has two tracks on streaming and vinyl not present on CD. Pink Tape (Lil Uzi Vert album) has a different track on #3 on vinyl versus CD or streaming. If CD is the standard we are going with, these songs will be omitted from their articles and further confuse as to why they were singles from the album if they're not on the tracklist.
 * In the case of Music to Be Murdered By, the Deluxe was titled "Side B" and was released as its own album but bundled with the original songs. This was purely done to boost sales and raise streams on the prior album, but the artist considers it its own body of work.
 * This is especially present with Eternal Atake. The deluxe version of that album has its own Wikipedia page, its own name and its own cover. According to Wikipedia policy, this article should not even exist. It was released bundled with the original album and labeled a deluxe purely for streams.
 * Pegasus (Trippie Redd album) did the same with Neon Shark vs Pegasus. The latter is a reissue "deluxe" album titled that way purely for streams. According to Wikipedia policy, this article should not even it exist.. It apparently should not be more than a blurb and small paragraph or sentence on the original page.
 * A peculiar question is raised for things like ! (Trippie Redd album). The original release on CD and streaming had one extra song. Controversy arose that led to said song being removed from future CD pressings and on streaming permanently.

I hope you can see where I'm coming from. In other genres, this may not be an issue and deluxe albums are for throwaway songs or remixes, but in hip-hop culture the deluxe pressing is usually its own album, contains singles from the album and in cases like The Life of Pablo, the tracklist changed every month for about a year, removing or adding songs. Jackie Stuntmaster (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Which policy says that these articles shouldn't exist? ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Track listing song links to albums
Hello, album article style guide editors. Is it appropriate or helpful to add links from songs in track listings to the albums on which the songs originally appeared? Here's an example of an edit where an editor added a number of such links, along with several conventional links to articles about the songs themselves. I'm thinking it's better to avoid such links, partly because our readers will expect the links to go to song articles, not album articles. What do others think? (Pinging who has added many such links recently.) — Mudwater (Talk) 23:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I like them: some information/context is better than none. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The bigger problem is that it's a poorly sourced article that may have notability problems. But I see your point, it's a weird mix of links to songs and albums; I think other live albums link to the original studio album in parentheses, rather than place the album link in the song title. Even more of a point, maybe, is that Phish, unlike the Dead, never really got it together in the studio, and both fans and editors may care more about the live aspect stuff ... some of those Phish studio album articles also need many more references. The live aspect is so huge for both bands that some of these live album issues may only pertain to the Dead and Phish. Caro7200 (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think these are basically WP:EASTER links. In many cases it wouldn't be clear why you had landed on the page you landed on. Popcornfud (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Although the links from songs in track listings of live albums to the studio albums on which the songs originally appeared are well-intentioned, I really think they should not be added, and existing ones should be removed. Readers expect a link from a song to go to an article about that song. Moreover, it's not necessarily that important which studio albums originally included the songs. I'm planning on updating the style guide soon, to say that links from songs should only go to articles about the songs. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I think that's a legitimate reading of the consensus. Maybe do the courtesy of a couple more weeks, but I find it unlikely any revelatory comments will be posted. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. There seems to be a consensus here that, in track listings of album articles, links from songs should only go to articles about the songs. I started this discussion because you have changed a number of live album track listings, linking the songs to the studio albums on which they originally appeared. You've done this on several dozen album articles. I removed those links from six of the articles, and you've reverted my edits, putting back the links -- on St. Louis '93, Amsterdam, Niagara Falls, Ventura, Chicago '94, and New Year's Eve 1995. (Two more not reverted by you are Dr. Stan's Prescription, Volume 1 and Dr. Stan's Prescription, Volume 2.) Could you please review the discussion above, and post here with your thoughts? I am hoping that you can be persuaded to stop adding these links, and to go back and undo the ones that you've added. I realize that you're trying to improve the articles, but I do think the links are not helpful to our readers, and as you can see some other editors agree with that. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey folks. After some delay, I have updated the album article style guide, here. I believe this reflects the current consensus, though I'd be open to further discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think "readers will expect the links to go to song articles" is a strong assumption. For me, I find that regardless of where it's going, so long as I land on a page that has some information about what I'm looking for then it's a good link. Same reason why I am pro-redirect. I can see that it might be less justifiable for a live album than, say, a V/A compilation, but I don't know that this rule makes complete sense across the board. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 00:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * How do you feel about this sort of thing, where the songs on a live album are linked to the studio albums on which the songs first appeared? I think it's not good at all.  Our readers will want to click through to articles about the songs themselves, not to other albums.  The intentions here may be good, but the style guide should strongly discourage it, in my view.  — Mudwater (Talk) 01:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see any additional info on the songs on those respective album articles, so I get the opposition there, but I still don't think it's a good blanket rule when it has its uses elsewhere and really does little harm. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 01:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the bigger issue is that so many of the examples are just not notable, and use huge chunks of quotes from some sources that may not be reliable. Perhaps redirects would be better for many of these live releases. Caro7200 (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Curious if people feel the same about musicians: linking a non-notable (in the WP sense) session musician in a personnel section to the musician's former semi-notable or notable band. For example: Lenny Underwood. Feel like I'm seeing this more often. My preference is to not link, but I note that it's a minor issue. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If the article has information on the subject (in the case of Underwood, it does), then I don't see why there shouldn't be a link. If someone wants to learn about that particular person then they should be given access to whatever info we have. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 23:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Label" or "distributor"
"Label" is quite vague for me as Andrew318 said those are distributors but not all the record labels. For example, the sample from Ugly Beauty:

183.171.122.123 (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * How are they not record labels? ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Because record label is a brand or trademark of music recordings, and helps artists who release their albums or singles, or artists would release with their own. Others can distributes, marketing, and promotes through domestic and internationally in this case. 2402:1980:2D2:A622:0:0:0:1 (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And @Koavf, you may read Glossary of Music Terms: Distribution - Spotify for Artists for details. 113.210.105.98 (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But no one cares about distributors—they care about labels. How many people care that a Sub Pop record was distributed by Warner or an ECM record was distributed by Deutsche Grammophon? TlonicChronic (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @TlonicChronic, true but how about "Licensees" — a third party that purchases the ability (license) to manufacture, market and distribute all or part of a rights holder's repertoire. For instance, a third-party licensees may purchase the rights to the UK version of an album owned by US artist or label. @ 183.171.121.68 (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems even more trivial than distributors to me TlonicChronic (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But I also suggesting another words "marketer" and "promoter" as seen at . @MaranoFan, @Ippantekina, @Ronherry, @Koavf, @Pillowdelight, @QuietHere, @Northamerica1000, which one you guys prefer? "Distributor", "Licensees", "marketer" or "promoter"? 183.171.123.225 (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're spending some time familiarizing yourself with the production chain!
 * If we take a look at your second link, the first 4 numbers we could lump together as "production", the next 3 as "distribution."
 * The first four are essentially 1. Musicians, 2. Recording engineers, 3. Mixing engineers, 4. mastering engineers. Each of these people has a direct influence on the sound of the product; if they do something different, the record sounds different. We care about credits for these people because they are artists that have a hand in the art.
 * The next three are the people that get it from a final master to the consumer: 5. laywers, 6. distributors, 7. marketers. Each of these people has a hand in getting the final product to market, but their work doesn't impact the sound. We don't care about credits for theses people because, while important, they aren't artists that had a hand in the art.
 * Why we care about the record label is because typically they have a hand in most, if not all, steps in the process. It really, really matters. In-house musicians, engineers, producers, lawyers, marketers and distributors galore. Major labels even have their own studios and pressing plants. TlonicChronic (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But wait a minute, speaking of distributors, there are another metadata of some albums are:
 * ℗ 2023 Young Money Records, Inc., distributed by Republic Records, a division of UMG Recordings, Inc. — from I Am Music by Lil Wayne
 * ℗ 2021 Getting Out Our Dreams II, LLC Distributed By Def Jam Recordings, A Division of UMG Recordings, Inc. — from Donda by Kanye West
 * ℗ 2023/24 JYP Entertainment Company, distributed by Republic Records, a division of UMG Recordings, Inc. — from singles/EPs by VCHA (U.S. release through internationally)
 * ℗ 2023 IsoBahTos, Distributed by Def Jam Recordings Malaysia, a Division of Universal Music Sdn. Bhd. — from singles by ISOBAHTOS
 * ℗ 2022 JVR Music International Ltd., exclusively distributed by Sony Music Entertainment Taiwan Ltd. — from Greatest Works of Art by Jay Chou
 * ℗ 2023 Daystar Entertainment Co., Ltd., exclusively distributed by Sony Music Entertainment Taiwan Ltd. — from BITE BACK by Cyndi Wang
 * 183.171.121.97 (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I noticed that VCHA singles/EPs were distributed by the U.S. label through internationally, while Apple Music Korea noted their copyright as "℗ 2023/24 JYP Entertainment". 183.171.120.57 (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Jwad mentioned at Talk:MDNA_(album)/Archive_1 said that any album release internationally is on the labels where the artists who signed or founded, while regional distributor who sell the records to record shops, not labels (in this case Taylor Swift's current label Republic, while marketing or distribution through internationally handled by EMI in UK and Universal in any other territories). 183.171.121.131 (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE?

 * I believe this is moving in the wrong direction. This is more Discogs type stuff than encyclopedic. We should be lessening these sorts of charts, not expanding or making them more detailed. Sergecross73   msg me  12:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I think this is the stuff WP:INDISCRIMINATE warns against. Release tables should be done away with.  Tkbrett  (✉) 14:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, we don't need these on Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But how come @Leehsiao and @Andrew318 calling them distributors? 183.171.120.183 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When we discuss about "Label" or "distributor", but suddenly you guys discuss about WP:INDISCRIMINATE. That's confusing. 2001:D08:2910:931B:17DE:EB78:EF5F:62FD (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I called @Leehsiao and @Andrew318 to come here for explanation, but no response so far. 2001:D08:2950:1741:17D7:4F53:82D:D55A (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I re-added subsections to avoid confusion.2001:D08:2920:7DE9:17DE:BCE7:BD42:3984 (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We rejected Sergecross73's suggestion because there is no "consensus" stating that "release history" is obsolete, in fact that topic discussion doesnt even revolve around removing "release history". 2001:D08:2903:F90:17E3:E978:FF51:B598 (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Simplifying "Release history" tables
I find that the current "Release history" format is too complex for Wikipedia, and as per the discussion above, even falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Listing too many multiple releases of a single album should be left to Discogs instead of Wikipedia. I propose discontinuing use of a few columns, particularly "Region" and "Label", and only listing editions of the album with distinct tracklist differences, and the respective initial release dates for those editions.

Pinging, , , for discussion purposes.

Example
(Before) Original "Release history" table (for Taylor Swift's Midnights):

(After) My proposed simplication for "Release history" tables:

Notes (only for talk page discussion purposes): Theknine2 (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "No. of tracks" is only included here as an example
 * The "Limited" digital download edition of Midnights was only made available for 12 hours on Taylor Swift's website, and only included a bonus track containing commentary of a single track. Similarly, the "Late Night" digital download was only available for a total of 24 hours. Hence, these should not be included in the table, since they had extremely limited distribution.
 * The "Lavender" and "Love Potion" vinyl LPs shared the same tracklist as the Standard, whereas the "Lavender" CD did include three bonus tracks. The "Lavender" CD and Deluxe share the same tracklist.

Updated table with suggested changes: Theknine2 (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:DTAB, make sure to include semantics like !scope="row"| and there should not be a column for references: just include them in the cell that is identified as the row. I also don't really see a need to list numbers of tracks: that seems like an arbitrary distinction. Otherwise, I have no strong feelings on the proposal and I agree that these data should be stored in Wikidata. I can see us keeping these tables or removing them. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added a second table above that accommodates these suggested changes. Theknine2 (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That rev is a pure chef's kiss. I am totally fine with that and I am fine with option 1 as well. Thanks for bringing this up.
 * To anyone who wants to remove this info, please consider adding it to Wikidata (which, I will grant, is a bit cumbersome or confusing). ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope that the "Release history" tables are retained, so that there is at least a general overview of the various (widely available * ) editions that an album may have been released throughout its lifespan, and when they were released. Though it can be argued that these editions could be/are already listed in prose, but the table is easier and less confusing for readers to read, particularly now that there's a significant number of fans who keep track of and purchase albums on vinyl.
 * * cough The Tortured Poets Department's many website-exclusive limited bonus track editions Theknine2 (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're basing the information just on differences in tracklist, wouldn't it make more sense to include it in prose in the tracklists section so it's clear which info corresponds to which iteration? And isn't this against the whole point of the table anyway? My understanding was these tables are included for albums which have different release dates in different regions, e.g. were released a week early in Germany and that's the only date that gets listed in the infobox even though it's an American band and the US release date is the one people would be most familiar with. Nothing to do with the tracklist itself. This isn't really simplifying, it's just replacing some info with some different info, and I don't think it's solving any actual problems with the table. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 18:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with QuietHere, and wouldn't call the current format indiscriminate. The purpose of listing regions along with dates is to show that certain places get distributions sooner than others. Giving different labels can help disprove assumptions that one label handles all the distributions for each territory. With that said, I oppose the suggested changes, and don't understand why Theknine2 thinks a discrepancy in track count would be more important to list there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As previous section above, @Leehsiao and @Andrew318 calling them distributor, in this case Republic in U.S., EMI in UK and Universal in any other territories. 2001:D08:2942:6A78:17DE:48B3:5E10:FB7E (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Its a non-decision. I don't understand the rational for the proposed change. >> Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 20:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for the ping, I totally missed it somehow. I think it really depends case by case. For albums with notable reissues, re-release dates, different formats, country-specific editions etc. it might guarantee inclusion of a "Release history" table and I think simplifying the details as you suggested makes sense. In most cases though, I think these tables can be safely disregarded as we have Discogs (external) or Wikidata (internal) to take care of these. Ippantekina (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Getting rid of "Release history" tables
After multiple discussions after multiple months, the one conclusion I've personally drawn is that these tables aren't worth keeping. They are generally sourced exclusively to primary sources, if not Discogs and other unreliables. They display information that either could be explained easily in prose (e.g. "The album was originally released in Germany on 12 July, before being released in the rest of Europe on 15 July") with reliable sources, or is excessive to include. And all that excessive info likely already exists on databases for which we have Discogs master, AllMusic, and other templates. In all of this discussion, I'm not sure I've seen a convincing argument for these tables' continued existence on English Wikipedia. So can we cap this all off? Either there are solid arguments in favor of them, or we finally rid ourselves of them for good. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 04:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Magazines like Music Week (UK) and The ARIA Report (Australia) published dedicated release sections for albums and singles. The Official Charts Company still updates one weekly. Secondary sources like these consider release dates notable, so that is something that favours their inclusion in articles. I have always viewed these tables as a temporary measure until the content can be incorporated better as prose. I have always opposed including catalog numbers, and poor sourcing about labels/distributors is an issue. The advice should say that the goal is for tables to be converted to prose and simplified. But there is no rush, and I do not see why every table should be removed immediately. Personally I have never seen a table cited to Discogs so I don't think reliability is a good justification for removing everything. If a table has sourcing issues then deal with it at that article. Heartfox (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Speaking of labels/distributors, back in November last year, Andrew318 told us that those are distributors, not labels, as well as Leehsiao's (as seen at every Jolin Tsai album articles from 1019_(album) to  Ugly Beauty where the "Release history" tables use of "Distributor" column) 113.210.105.125 (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't think this is that big of a deal, whether it's a distributor or a label its job is to distribute the music. I don’t understand why IP's are this obsessed with this topic. Pillowdelight (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Stop pinging me.  Tkbrett  (✉) 10:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a hidden ping we are replying to in a discussion without displaying any text. Why are you so serious? 2001:D08:2931:49DF:17E2:B10B:48F9:D1EB (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because they get a notification every time they are pinged, and it can be quite annoying, especially for a discussion they were hardly involved in to begin with. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 13:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What is this "speaking of"? That's a different conversation from a different section. Why are you bringing it up again here? Please stay on topic. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 17:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see "Label" or "distributor" and discuss if you like. 2001:D08:2931:49DF:17E2:B10B:48F9:D1EB (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I don't think I would joined into this discussion cause I'm more focus on other factors, such as visual media (like TV or movies). VernardoLau (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I already know about that discussion; I referenced it in the lead of mine. What i'm saying is that this isn't a discussion about changing the table, but eliminating it altogether, and you bringing up prior discussions about changing it again is off-topic. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 13:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)