Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 29

Help!
I'm trying to get the article on the EP Slow Life by Super Furry Animals up to GA status however it's a rather odd release and I can't seem to find too many GA articles on EPs to compare it against (the only one I can find is Transfusion (EP) which seems a little stubby to me) My problem is that it's really little more than a single although the band call it an EP. The lead track appears on the album Phantom Power and the third track is an alternative version of a song from that record. If it were a single I'd write a section about the musical structure of the lead track but it seems a bit odd to do that for an EP... I know I need to expand the lead, I'd like to write a bit more about "Slow Life's" use in the film 9 Songs and include something else about Goldie Lookin Chain's involvement (although I can't find anything about the latter as yet) but other than that I'm a bit unsure. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cavie78 (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article looks good to me. Though Slow Life is a shorter EP than most, there really shouldn't be any difference between an EP article and an album article. That being said, there is much variety in the styles of album articles. So you can write it whatever way you want. -Freekee (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Illmatic
This user, 71.231.28.185 (talk), keep on removing the Robert Christgau rating, saying that it aint right to keep cause Christgau is a rock critic. But the WikiProject Albums page say it a professional review site. What is we to do bout this, to avoid an edit war?

Dan56 (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no way the Robert Christgau review should be removed in my opinion - you could say magazines like Q, Uncut and Mojo are predominately 'rock' mags but they review hip-hip albums as well. The infobox is meant to provide a range of opinion anyway - seems POV to remove a review like this. Cavie78 (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:43, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

info on additional CD-release of Isle of Wight
(removed post by...) Nescioooh (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nescioooh, it appears you are trying to create some articles that already exist; see Isle of Wight (album) and Blue Wild Angel: Live at the Isle of Wight. You may want to see if these articles can be improved. Let me know if you need any help. I am putting a list of helpful links on your talk page, which should help you learn about using Wikipedia. Welcome aboard! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter and the Wolf (David Bowie album)
There's a discussion, which has reached stalemate, about whether this album should be considered a David Bowie album or not. If you wish to add your thoughts, you can do so here. --JD554 (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of a "professional review"
From the current description of a "professional review" it appears that only reviews by a "professional music journalist or a DJ" are accepted. In other words, the person writing a review has to be a journalist by profession. Or rather an individual getting financially compensated for his words. Surely, in order to continue getting compensated, the individual would want to write reviews that would generate an audience, since most of the compensation in music journalism is derived from advertisers, who in turn would only pay for promotion if the visible audience is in greater numbers. The journalist is then more likely to cover the latest U2 release instead of an underground up-and-coming band or artist (unless it generated populous excitement).

What about a journalist who is writing on a pro bono or non-profit basis? Since he is not compensated, he therefore can not be considered a professional reviewer. Regardless of the positive or the negative opinion that his words may generate. So at which point one professional review is better then an advertising tabloid, while the other sounds more like a blog? Or am I missing something here entirely?

146.180.106.231 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding new and underground artists, even these, if they are attempting a professional career, will have a publicity agent who will ensure their releases get reviewed. Although it's popularly considered difficult for new acts to get their foot in the door, I haven't heard of problems with getting a release reviewed by anyone, unless it's a 100% vanity release by an amateur artist with no music industry connections.  Regarding "advertising tabloids", can you provide an example of one that does reviews?  Advertising, fansite/blog postings, "non profit" reviewing, and professional reveiwing would seem to be 4 different things.  Yes, we want to exclude the first two and include the last, and I'm not sure what the second-last is. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Check out Headphone Commute. The site is not affiliated with any artist/label and reviews mostly electronic, experimental and instrumental music for labels that may/not have a publicity agent who will be able to get the music into mainstream professional reviewer hands. The site does not fit under "professional reviewers" category since I don't believe it gets compensated by anyone (unless every one is an intern, or working non-profit there), and it may also be run by only a handful of people. Now, since it posts on many social networks, including blogger and wordpress, it could be (and probably is) considered a blog posting. But it's neither a fansite, nor an actual web log - it simply utilizes the technologies of the new media to distribute the information. So... which one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.180.106.231 (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think all reviews still need to be reliable sources. Headphone Commute appears to be a self-published source: there isn't anything on the site's about page or contact page to show it is reliable. Neither does the site appear to be used other reliable sources as a source. --JD554 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. I'll read more into reliable sources definition. But what about the fact that the artists themselves are being interviewed on the site. Wouldn't that mean that the artist confirms the review in terms of all fact checking minus the opinion, which would make it as reliable as it could get? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.180.106.231 (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That might allow the interview to be used as a reference—for example, if they mention their musical influences on an album, that can be added to the album article—but the artist accepting an interview doesn't mean the review should be used. If my mom starts a website and reviews my album, then interviews me, does her review now merit inclusion? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

AssessorTags
Hello! I thought that I'd bring to your attention a new script which I have created, AssessorTags, which helps to add WikiProject banners to talk pages. now been included in the script, so it may be helpful when locating and tagging articles. Documentation for the script can be found here, and if you have any questions feel free to ask at my talk page. Please not that I will probably not be watching this page, so comments left here will not be responded to. –Drilnoth (T • C) 00:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

LOS LOBOS-THE NEIGHBORHOOD
BE CAREFUL! IN THE TRACKLIST YOU FORGOT TO MENTION TRACK NUMBER 12 (INFACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS TRACK NUMBER 13):THE EXCELLENT "BE STILL".

THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.29.151.151 (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * THANKS FOR THE WARNING, I WILL REMEMBER TO BE CAREFUL!!! I WOULDN'T WANT TO TRIP AND BREAK MY WRIST. P.S. Please don't write everything in capital letters. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure there is not more than one edition of the album? There are two things you could do: change the article yourself (if you're sure your track list is the same for all editions), or post a message about it on the aritlce's talk page, where it can be seen and addressed by people who know more about the album.  Also, please remember to sign your posts, and ditto on not typing in caps. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviews
Can school articles such as The Badger Herald and The Daily Beacon can be use for reviews? If not in the infobox then in the article itself? ~Moon~ 月 と  暁 ~Sunrise~ 12:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In general, no, since they are not professional reviews. But if the paper interviews a notable band, you could use the band's statement in that interview to enhance their article or the article for one of their albums. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. ~Moon~ 月 と  暁 ~Sunrise~ 13:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon
I've been working on this album with a view to getting to GAC and possibly FAC. I must admit I'm slightly stumped on how exactly to correctly reference the chart positions for singles and the album itself, and sales records. I've had a look at a few other album FAC articles, but am not really any the wiser, especially as some of the references seem to provide multiple results for the same album. Could anyone offer guidance, and possibly advise on the current article layout? Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Album Sales Citations
Each week, Billboard.com releases the total number of sales for a given album in the top 10. Unfortunately, as of yet, there has not been an article indicating total sales for, in this case, U2's newest release "No Line on the Horizon." However, we do have the total number of sales to date, done by simply adding up the sales figures given each week. Unfortunately, citing all of these (four so far) has become a problem in the article. The chart is becoming too messy with all the citations and without a single article referring to total sales, these will simply continue to add up. We have the accurate information as to the total sales for the album, but is there any way we can present that without cluttering up the article? Perhaps we could simply cite the most up-to-date article and leave a note indicating how that number was reached and provide links at the "References" or "External Links" section at the bottom of the page? Shkee23 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Another approach is to include the multiple sources within a single tag. Separate each by a line break (


 * But the list in the references section would still continue to grow. How about a single ref tag as suggested but with just the first and most recent sources with a note saying to total all between as well? --JD554 (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Christgau reviews
Hi all. This is just a note to say that user:JPayneSmith/IP 71.56.47.113 seems to have arbitrarily added Robert Christgau's reviews to any old album. In fact, some of these so-called "reviews" feature the album title followed by a singular icon (or perhaps a couple of song names if you're lucky). I'd appreciate help sorting out this mess as some of the reviews are of merit and discuss the topic. Others...I don't believe our friend Robbie had the patience to listen past track 2. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Personnel sections
What is the policy on Personnel sections in album articles regarding subsections such as "band members", "additional musicians", and "production"? Should Personnel section just be a regular bulleted list of people who contributed to an album, or should subsections be added to differentitate whether the person is a member of the band, additional musician, or member of the production staff? Most of the featured album articles I have seen just have it as a regular bulleted list, but yet some have it the other way as well.-5- (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel subsections (in this case, in the form of columns) are necessary for some articles as there can be a great deal of personnel involved in the making of an album. Having columns separate sections as -5- listed above can help and inquired and naive reader differentiate who the band/group is from the additional musicians and production team. Admittedly, some articles don't need it, but there are some with which having organization can help clean up what can otherwise look to be a messy section. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There isn't really an agreed-upon method. I like to use a bulleted list, with breaks in between band members, additional musicians and technical personnel. You could use bold headers, but I prefer not to use subsection breaks (=== Members ===). Like Bulldog said, the key is presenting the best info in the cleanest manner. -Freekee (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with what the others have said. The appropriate format mainly depends on the album, and what kind of information is provided in the credits.  The only point I have to add, is it's a little silly to see cases where 70% of a personnel listing is about the people who remastered an older album for CD. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 11:11 (album)
An article that you have been involved in editing, 11:11 (album), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -DePiep (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall the entire project respond to this notice? (I was going to leave a reply at the AfD page, but it appears the issue has been resolved and the discussion locked up and archived before anyone had a chance to see it.  Who's in charge here, anyway? :) ) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably just a template or copy-paste notification for user notifications, that DePiep forgot to tailor to be targeted at a project. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, VFD was wrong choice, it should be (and now is) a redirect to the disambiguation page 11:11. The three albums have moved there too. Sorry for the inconvenience. -DePiep (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Queerty
Can Queerty be used in the "Professional Review" section? ~Moon~ 月 と  暁 ~Sunrise~ 00:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Albums with quotation marks
A few albums are released with quotation marks on the album cover. Most of these are referred to in reviews and elsewhere primarily as if the album title had no inherent quotes around it. A good recent example is Bob Dylan's "Love and Theft" (or Love and Theft). It is listed one way on his own website's list of albums, and another in most prominent reviews. I personally prefer not to have quotations in a title unless they are around something that is explicitly quoted (e.g., "Q" is for Quotation Marks), but I'm leaving this comment to note that we should decide and explicitly include this corner case in the style guidelines. +sj +  05:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why did you move "Heroes" and "Love and Theft" without any discussion? There was no consensus to change it. The quotes are in the title. There are no corner cases. Your "preference" is not important. The album either has quotes or it doesn't. The fact that "most prominent reviews" list it without quotes is beside the point, since not every important source gets everything correct all the time. Your edit comment on "Love and Theft" reads "leaving quotes out of title as per mos". Where in the MOS does it say that punctuation found in a title is optional? I hope you're right, because you sure have moved a lot of articles. "Ringo" and "Singles" seem to be the only other ones that affect this project. -Freekee (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with sj+ that just because the album title is written between quotation marks on the cover does not automatically imply that they are a part of the title. I can easily think of a few albums where this is already the case (e.g. Give Us a Wink). But both "Heroes" and "Ringo" contains explicit references that explain why the quotation marks are an integral part of the album title, and in the case of "Love and Theft" it is explained in the article's opening sentence. I believe that these three articles should not have been moved. Furthermore, you performed the move without reflecting it in the article's text and infobox as well as the artist's navbox, thereby creating a bunch of inconsistencies. I suppose you didn't bother about articles that wikilinks to those you moved either. I am not thrilled. – IbLeo (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I have undone some article renames in the past. I posted my reasons for wanting to do the undo on the articles' talk pages, and on related project pages, and notified the user(s) who made the changes.  Then I waited a few days, found no objections (and at least one reply of support), so went ahead and reverted.  No problem. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be necessary to discuss the undo when the article contains a reference justifying that the quotes are part of the title. Consequently I have just moved "Ringo" and "Love and Theft" back; someone else already did the same to "Heroes". I let "Singles" stay at it's new title as it has no such reference. No problem :-) – IbLeo (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Project Barnstar
Hi everyone.

On the fact tha our project doesn`t have a Barnstar on its own i asked a member of the awards project to desing one, he did a really good job on it.

Asking for feedback of a member (MoonRG), and receiving a positive one, i now submit it to everyone approval, so, what do you thinkZidane tribal (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi All I am ready to hear your comments and suggestions, and I ll be more than happy to work with you to create a barnstar that matches this excellent wikiproject :-) Maen. K. A. (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My experience has been that this is a traditionally quiet group. :) As Zidane tribal says, I like it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny, I was just thinking about doing this, last week or so. But I've been busy, and my photoshop skillz aren't that mad. So thanks, it's awesome! Though I don't suppose anybody could make it spin? ;-) -Freekee (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * At 33 1/3 rpm! Only joking, it looks great as it is. --JD554 (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you All, I ll Try to make it spin, but for now, I ll make the template using this picture, here is the Template Maen. K. A. (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I also like it - good initiative! If you have finished the template, I suggest adding it to the project page; otherwise in a month or so when this thread has been archived, I doubt anybody will be able to find it. – IbLeo (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I also like the idea of adding it to the project page but don`t worry about the members and users in general being unable to find it, Moonriddengirl added it to the list of Barnstars and i added it to the Wikiprojects Barnstars subsection; anyway, if nobody opposes your suggestion i say we put it along with the membership userbox. What do you think. Zidane tribal (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me; I have seen it done that way in other WikiProjects and I think it is nice to have it at hand on the project page itself, so we don't need to go to those other pages you mention to find it. – IbLeo (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the barnstar to project space, and added it into the Project templates section. Take a look and make changes if you see fit. I notice the image is called InitialdesginforWPA.png. Someone might want to move that to a more permanent sounding name. -Freekee (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The location works for me, i`ll get into the name changing. Zidane tribal (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I tested the instructions on the article page; for some reason it doesn't display like I would expect. More precisely, I added the line " Well done! ~ " to my sandbox and the text displayed in the barnstar is " ". Am I using it wrongly, or is there a problem in the template implementation? Maybe someone would look into this. – IbLeo (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know zero about template coding. The code that Zidane listed here had the "there you have it" message. I took that out and put in "message". -Freekee (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I expect you will be satisfied with how is showing right now at the project page. Of course chages are welcome. Zidane tribal (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It works fine now. Thanks :-) – IbLeo (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, template namespace. Told you I knew zero. Thanks again, Zidane! -Freekee (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The image has been renamed with a proper name. Zidane tribal (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The first couple of barnstars have already been earned. Well deserved! – IbLeo (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Recording place
Something has always hit me odd with the recording section under the album templates. Why list where the album was recorded? Several albums are recorded at multiple places and not simply at one location. How exact can the recording place be? I find that the recording section should specify just the date and not location. Some of the names of the recording companies in the template make it look squished together and I always find it better to just list the recording place and mastering in the article instead of the template. Any thoughts? Douglasr007 (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a project-wide rule (and there shouldn't be, since this isn't really a noisy issue). If there are several recording places, it is usually best to only include that info in the body of the article. The infobox can say "various locations" or something like that. But if there is consensus on one particular article to include it all in the infobox, that's fine. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't object to the location being stated in the article, I don't see a problem with it being in the infobox. But the usage of the field is flexible.  If you don't feel it's necessary to list the location there in a certain article, you don't have to.  As for importance, there are some albums actually titled after the studio: The Beatles' Abbey Road, and Elton John did it twice with Honky Chateau and Caribou.  Regarding "squished together", there was another complaint recently about the appearance of an infobox where the text was full-justified for one user, but not for others.  Could that be the problem? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Track listing
I suggest we start using Template:Tracklist insteads of numbered lists for track listing. What's your opinion about this? --Pitoutom (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I remain opposed to blanket adopting the template, although its use may be valuable for complex situations. The numbered list remains simpler to edit. The template suffers from some of the same difficulties as tables, including "more complex notation that hinders editing" (language borrowed from List). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Moonriddengirl: simple lists should be kept simple. --JD554 (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. There are also some instances where the template is not flexible enough.  I realize it is continually being updated to meet special demands, but I look at it as a feature still in development.  And for many articles, a simple list format has a better appearance. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, i don`t know if anyone has notice, the Hip hop albums, sort of have as a guideline to be in table or template and i really find the numbered list too much simpler to work with and lighter to the browser besides when you find articles like this the numbered list enough is overwhelming. Zidane tribal (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be left as a choice by editors, but I think we ought to at least mention it on the project page. -Freekee (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd agree to that. The question keeps coming up, and/or some people think all discogs are supposed to be converted to the template format.  We've been resisting it, but we should admit the template exists, and clarify that its use is optional, maybe mention the pros and cons of using it.  I think one of the reasons we havent' done that before, is it has been under development, and we didn't want to document its features when they might have been changing.  We still shouldn't document its features too much, because that belongs at the template's page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We've attempted to document it before but have run into disputes about the best language. I believe that mention of it needs to note that consensus is for simplicity, with the template being generally more favored for complex track lists. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I too would be in support of mentioning it on the project page as an optional (and strictly non-mandatory) tool for editors. But having such an addition come with any sort of restrictive language would misrepresent actual practice (which is what guidelines are supposed to reflect after all). – Cyrus XIII (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And this is why it's not there. :) No agreement on how to address it. Placing it in without noting consensus for simplicity, both on this talk page and at WP:Lists, would be misleading. (Project guidelines do not necessarily reflect common practice, but best practice, as per Policies and guidelines: "WikiProjects often have pages that explain how that project works, and give best practices or recommendations for the articles within that project's scope." Wherever we stand on this individual issue, I would imagine we all agree that there are many common practices related to album articles which this project would not support.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Quoting WP:PG on project guidelines a bit further: "These documents may only represent a consensus of a small number of editors." So, are you suggesting that said small number of editors should engage in top-to-bottom decision making, as opposed to documenting to their best of abilities what's happening beyond project and guideline talk pages? That would obviously not be in the spirit of WP:PG. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Putting the period inside the quotation marks kind of suggests that's all that sentence says; that's why our WP:MOS says, "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation. This practice is referred to as logical quotation; it is used by Wikipedia both because of the principle of minimal change, and also because the method is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing." The full sentence says, "These documents may only represent a consensus of a small number of editors, and it should be clear from their names that they are parts of projects." There's a header on the top of the page that says, "This is a WikiProject, a collaboration area and open group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of a particular topic, or to organizing some internal Wikipedia process." I think we have that one amply covered. No one can mistake this for a general policy or guideline, and we are free to document best practices as we may agree to them. I realize that you are very fond of the template you created, and it seems to be a nice template for what it does. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies if I'm misreading the overall tone of your last post, but if you're going to get agitated over the dynamics of guideline creation or an erroneously placed period (again, my apologies), then I'll have to step out here and once more just agree to disagree with you. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not agitated; I'm just clarifying. The period loses the sense of the sentence, as it is the beginning and not the entirety of the thought. I don't have a strong emotional investment in the template; I simply believe that the guideline needs to document recommended use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright. We've already established that (at least in theory) project guidelines carry quite a bit less authoritative weight than general guidelines and policies. The problem is, that there can only be so many tiers of rule sets that editors will wrap their head around in everyday editing. In practice, people will often apply WP:ALBUMS like the next guideline. I've done it myself in the past and why shouldn't one? It's comprehensive, thorough, right on topic for a large group of articles and written in the authoritative style of a regular guideline. Hence, if it gets treated like one (the fine print on WP:PG notwithstanding), I believe it would be only prudent to moderate that "made by few, because we can" philosophy, especially when it comes to any kind of restrictive assessment. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm kinda losing track of what this discussion is about! It was originally a question about whether we want to document the Tracklist document in the Album article instructions, and if so, what we want to say about it (since there seems to be agreement we don't want to recommend its use everywhere).  Then it became a discussion about placing a period (which I presume was carried over from somewhere else, as I don't see any context about how this one got started).  Then it became a discussion about whether project rules trump general WP rules.  How does that relate to any of the above?  I can't figure out what the latest post is about, at all.  If these are continuations of discussions started elsewhere, maybe they should be taken back over there, because not much of this is making sense to me.  (Sorry to have to say all this, nobody take it personally, okay?) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I'll explain. :) Cyrus XIII is I believe of the opinion that in wide practice his template is used for any sort of tracklist and that, as this is so, this guideline is wrong to reflect consensus formed by discussion on this talk page, instead of widespread practice. I pointed out that according to WP:P&G, documenting best or recommended practices is what project pages are supposed to do. The minutiae of interpreting WP:P&G comes into it there. I believe his basic question is, "Does WikiProject Album have the right to note restrictions on the usage of this template in its guidelines?" My opinion is, "Yes, we do, if we are documenting recommended best practice." Traditionally, the conversation about including the template fades into silence after a few rounds.


 * In re to Cyrus: all members of Wikipedia WikiProject Album are welcome to come to the talk page and discuss forming of the guideline. This isn't an exclusive club. The guideline already recommends "A track listing should generally be formatted as a numbered list." I tend to think that those users you posit who've been ignoring that recommendation to use the template aren't going to suddenly stop if the phrase "more complex tracklists might benefit from a table or template" or some similar language is added. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I get that part of it! :) I'm seeing questions about whether a mention should be given, but no actual example of what is being proposed. Maybe someone could propose the actual wording of a change to the instructions, and we could weigh in on it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * All right. I'm game. :) I'll try it below. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think that track list templates are unnecessary and overly complicated. The track listing in it's simplest form is the best method, after all this is how it's done on albums and CD's! Why make things more complicated / untidy than is necessary? Stephenjh (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed language
I've read over the track listing section, and most of it applies whether the tracklist is a list, a table or a template. There are some specific elements scattered throughout that are list specific (such as the recommended use of en dashes). Tables are mentioned already in the hip-hop section, and, if they are incorporated above, that duplicated recommendation would need to be restructured.

How about if we take much of the text on tables and bring it up to just below the opening "paragraph" (the basic recommendation and examples), and say something like:
 * Using a table or the Tracklist template is recommended in more complicated situations (see Before These Crowded Streets for example). If a table is used, it should be formatted using, using column headings "#", "Title" and "Length" for the track number, the track title and the track length, respectively.

This is almost verbatim already in the guideline. I have simply added the words "or the Tracklist template".

Objections? Improvement? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I see that at some point our Before These Crowded Streets example became useless anyway, since somebody substituted the template for the table. I'm not sure why, but that's not rendering properly for me. The track lengths are imposed over the infobox. This could be my particular Mozilla settings. Anybody else getting that? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also use Mozilla FireFox (v.3.0.9) and the Before These Crowded Streets tracklist displays correctly for me (no overlay), even when I play with the width of the bookmarks frame. I fully support allowing the use of Tracklist along the same lines as a table, and your proposed language is fine with me. As for examples, why not use Before These Crowded Streets to illustrate both uses and let editors decide for themselves. This is the last version using a table. – IbLeo (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It also looks ok to me, using Firefox. And I do like the organization of the Tracklist template much better than the table, but the one thing I hate most about templates (and infoboxes) is retrieving the blank source/structure for it. I wish Wiki could create the formatting after one first inserts the template.  Then we could easily fill in the blanks.  Sorry about the rant, but that's just my biggest issue with using templates for the first time.  --Mtjaws (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Then it's probably my default text size or something. Using the same article as an example for both uses sounds like a good idea. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It needs to be a permanent link, we can't guarantee that the page will always look the same. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case, we could just copy the track list into the instructions as an example, as is done elsewhere. Perhaps, to emphasize the project is not promoting any one method for universal use, we could show examples of all 3 methods: list, table, and template. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

←So, do we call this consensus for this language (and these permanent example links), or does the conversation drop off again? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate to be a nitpicker over wording, but if our project is not endorsing the template as the primary wording, there is a danger that some users will read the first part: "Using a table or the Tracklist template is recommended..." - and stop there, thinking they've read that these metheds are recommended over lists. What we mean to say is these methods can be a solution where there is complexity that a list can't handle very well.  Instead of "is recommended", I'd prefer something like "may be a better choice, depending on the circumstances", if that's not too awkward.


 * Despite that, I was thinking of the example being 1 list displayed 3 ways, even though that seems to de-emphasize the point that a given list probably works better when formatted one way, than the other two. If that's agreeable, should we show a real-life tracklist done 3 ways, or just a made-up example?  If real-life, what example can be used that will look approximately valid under all 3 methods.  Maybe I'm on the wrong track, and we should be using 3 different tracklists as examples. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What about:
 * In more complicated situations, a table or the Tracklist template may be a better choice (see list, table, (still looking for properly formatted template in FA)). If a table is used, it should be formatted using class="wikitable", using column headings "#", "Title" and "Length" for the track number, the track title and the track length, respectively.
 * As to the examples, either way works for me. Since we can find existing examples, perhaps we should select one of each and provide a permanent link to it for now until we either manufacture one or find one that has been nicely displayed in all three formats. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can find some examples to recommend. The proposed wording looks great.  I do have one question, which is probably just showing my ignorance: most of the examples of tables on the help page called Help:Table do not actually say class="wikitable"; what is the difference in using it, and is it necessary? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no clue. :) That was already in the guideline, and I just reproduced it. I've added two examples from featured articles. I'm looking for a featured article that uses the template correctly, but haven't found one yet. Most of the FAs use the list. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't an FA; it isn't even assessed, but it's used correctly: . Assuming, of course, that it's right that Eminem deserves writing credit for all tracks. I haven't verified. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I put some examples that could be used on a user page, see here. I'm not sure if this example for the tracklist is good, because it may not be following the rules correctly.  As I understand it, every name should appear in full and wikilinked just once, and as a non-linked surname only in subsequent appearances.  If that applies to the whole section including the "lead vocals" column, then the table is wrong.  Even if it only applies to composer credits, Harrison should only be shown as a full name once, but that's a simple change.  Also, the names Lennon and McCartney, at the top of the list, are linked unusually, and that should be changed.  Since this suggests quite a few changes may be needed, your Eminem example might be a better choice.  But does that list follow the rules when it separates Eminem from the other writers?  I've never seen that done before; usually each song will show all writers together in one place, except where the lyricist is separated out. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The examples page I made has section divisions, because I wanted to show how these are used to mark side one and side two in a simple list. Maybe that isn't feasible for the instructions page, in which case we could just turn these sub-headings into bolded text.  But would that method serve as a misleading example, as though recommending the use of artificially bolded text for this?  Another point: the example I used for the table format does not include 2 columns which our instructions say should be included (composer and song length) because this info isn't available, but it's still a good example IMO, especially if used to demonstrate that some tables have an oddball combination of information items that can't be handled by the template method.  We may have to add "(if appicable)" to the recommendations of what columns to put in the table. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a comment to the bottom of each example stating what each is demonstrating. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I'm still changing the proposal page after writing about it here. Now I've changed the order to show a list first, then the template where the list format is not sufficient, then a table where the template is not sufficient.  I think that makes it easier to understand when to use which format. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that it may be better to use the tracklist template with a more complex situation, since that's what the guideline recommends. That's why I snagged [. If we're using previously existing examples, is there some reason not to just provide a permanent link to the article, as with this? --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You and I went searching for examples at the same time. I was not arguing for using Abbey Road over The Eminem Show, I just put one example on the proposal page, then came back and found you had suggested another in the meantime.  We want to be sure we use an example that completely conforms to the rules being stated in the instruction page, and I pointed out that Eminem's splitting of the composer credits into two places may not be to standards, or may be a confusing example.  Since I'm thinking Abbey Road also has problems, maybe we should look for a third example.  As for linking to an old revision of a page, it's not as illustrative as actually showing the example next to the instructions.  On the other hand, we may not want the examples to take up too much space.  Maybe a hide/show box is the answer, but I understand there are problems with using them in articles (using one hide/show box can cause other boxes to become hidden).  Another reason for copying examples over, instead of linking to them, is that small changes could be required.  In the Little Richard example, there were a few trivial spacing problems, and the article's version did not show the side one / side two headings, which I added when I copied it.  Of course I could fix up the original article instead!  Anyway, I'll look and see if I can find another template example. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I looked randomly through articles that use the template, and can't find any I like! Either they have nothing special to justify using the tempate, or they don't follow the tracklist rules in some way.  Cyrus III provided another good example (see post after this one), but it is another one that does not properly show composer names in full on the first appearance, and surname on repeats.  I'm thinking we should use one of the examples we've already picked, but modified.  Looking at Abbey Road again, and seeing Cyrus' example, I don't think it's necessary to change the lead vocals column, since the name rule only applies to composers.  I've fixed the other issue on my sub-page.  Alternately, we could use a modified (corrected) version of the Eminem example. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's like a Wikipedia tradition, isn't it? Doing things at the same time. :D If we're going to put them in the guidelines with a show/hide box, then I guess we can fix any formatting irregularities we might need. I'm not hung up on any particular example. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since Before These Crowded Streets was mentioned earlier on, I've used its track listing to create demos of all three methods. (Note that the show/hide functionality is only there to prevent an examples section from becoming too lengthy.) That being said, I still have reservations regarding the template being grouped in with the table method and more complex lists (due to 'templates ≠ tables' in terms of inherent complexity/ease of use), but the language proposed so far is hardly dogmatic or overly prohibitive either. While I'd prefer the project page to simply put all the options on the table, limiting recommendations to stating the obvious pros and cons, I find the more recent drafts more agreeable than the initial one, not because they avoid unintended recommendations (I wouldn't have thought of that, actually), but because they put more focus on use cases and how to deal with them, rather than on establishing some kind of rigid hierarchy of formatting methods. It's more practical and also leaves more room to accommodate future developments. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good example for the table and the template, but I think we might do better with a more standard example for the list. Since the table & template are being recommended for more complex matters, I think we might want to show the usual title, writer, time display for the list. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's where finding appropriate examples becomes tricky: Usage of the template in the classic number/title/writer/length scenario has a) become fairly common and is b) most definitely covered by the three-column bit in MOS:LIST. Hence, using the same album as an example for all three methods would sidestep making any usage assumptions that might contradict the MOS. Also, the examples might end up lacking proper coverage of nested lists. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There seem to be plenty of lists in the featured article category of albums; I looked through quite a few of them, and lists where mostly what was there. There's this one, for instance. The guideline still says "A track listing should generally be formatted as a numbered list." There's been no proposal to change that. The basic format—#"Complete song title" (Doe, Kelly Kalamazoo) – 3:24—is not complicated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was talking about listings that provide individual songwriting credits for each track, like here. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know that we need one that provides individual songwriting credits for each track if there aren't different songwriters for each track (this FA is done correctly), but there's . Needs first names added for songwriters to comply with guideline, though. I started at the top and didn't go through the whole list again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course there doesn't have to be an extra column for songwriting credits in an "except where noted" scenario, if that's what you are getting at. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I'm getting at. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

←Lacking any other suggestions, I've gone ahead and incorporated the examples you already did (as well as quite a bit of hidden material which I've since removed :)). If other examples are preferred, we can easily switch them out. I also made the link to Help:Tables explicit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Great work! (And now, it's barnstarable, too!) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Grouping of project templates
I took the liberty of grouping all the various project templates under the section "Project template". It seemed like a logical move to me. Furthermore, new project members will now find instructions about how to join at the top of the project page, rather than at the bottom. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request
Thanks I am posting here for anyone who wants to volunteer reviewing at Peer review/Everything That Happens Will Happen Today/archive1. I have also posted a request on User talk:Ceoil, as he is listed as a peer review volunteer. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Genre titling rules
The rules state that only the first of the list of genres should be capitalized. This causes some immature fights (people want their favorite to be the capitalized one), but also causes considerable confusion in terms of English grammatical rules, as this is not a standard way to do things. As presented, these lists look like "Genre: Genre1, genre2, genre3" .. They are not sentences - and whatever aspect about them does resemble a sentence is reflected by the capitalization of the word "Genre" itself. I suggest that either all of them are capitalized (as some people like to do in lists, treating each list entry as its own 'sentence' object - this also improves readability), or that none of them are capitalized. Luminifer (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen genre "fights" that appear to be over this reason. I do see genres switched around to list a different one first, but I doubt its capitalization is a factor.  There are no universally accepted grammar rules about capitalizing lists and other non-sentences, and as long as Wikipedia has a rule about it that is being consistently followed for the most part, I am happy to follow it.  Regarding your example in quotes, I think you've fudged it a little to make a point, as the album infobox does not show "Genre:" as part of a text line with a colon after it, but as a separated heading, in bold font.  Regarding your note that some editors like to capitalize every item in a list, I've seen that too, and it's against the guideline that says caps should be avoided where not neciessary.  The problem is that this rule is obscure for some.  Whenever I see an edit to such a list, with too many caps, I correct it and explain in the edit summary; hopefully the editors see it and learn.  Since I like that rule, I would be against seeing a new rule recommending lists with each item capitalized.  Furthermore, not capitalizing the first item in a list looks funny to me (I suppose standards for this vary from one country to another, something we need to be mindful of), and doesn't match the rest of Wikipedia. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed - it looks funny to me when the first is capitalized, and the rest aren't. I think the best look is having each one capitalized. For an example of such a feud, look at Death Magnetic. In music, specifically, it's often the standard to capitalize each word in a song title - so it's easy to see why people want to carry that trend over into genre names, to varying degrees. Regardless of whether "Genre" is considered part of the full-sentence (I believe that it is, by context - it is the heading), the list of genre entries is by no means a sentence, so standard sentence capitalization rules don't need to necessarily apply (and, to me, look confusing). Capitalization goes so far as to state that each line of verse is capitalized, which may even be a better reference for a list of genres, which could be listed line by line (but is still not ideal). I think it would be helpful that, whatever standard wikipedia follows, it actually provided an explanation for it, rather than being arbitrary and essentially implying that whoever was first/loudest when this decision was made was the one who decided the 'official' policy. Luminifer (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, for reference, allmusic.com capitalizes genre per-word (as in Heavy Metal, see http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:axfqxqr5ldhe ). imdb capitalizes genre as well ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066550/ ) as capitalizing phrases like "Black and White" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317640/ ). Amazon capitalizes members of lists also (see Format here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00008V2WZ/ref=s9_intd_gw_t2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=09PHJ61TTPQ6GN8VVDKS&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846 ), so wikipedia definitely does not seem to be following the standard here. Luminifer (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Instruction creeeeep. Can we first determine if this is actually a serious problem before we make a rule? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See Death Magnetic; it's been going on for a few days there. Also, someone just changed Jethro Tull. Regardless of whether it's a _huge_ problem, it's a big waste of everyone's effort, because some people (rightly) will be enforcing wikipedia's (somewhat obscurely hidden) standards, while some other people will (also rightly) be following the standards that seem to be used on every other site I've looked into. Luminifer (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason each genre isn't capitalized is because they aren't proper nouns. The compromise of capitalizing all genres only to resolve a problem in a single article doesn't seem justified. —  Σ xplicit  20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my explanation of the standard at other sites like amazon, imdb, allmusic, etc. They follow the standard of capitalizing each word in a genre (or other descriptive item in a list, like Color, Black and White, Video). The grammatical explanation for this may not be clear, but genre listings are certainly not sentences, so it does not make sense to only capitalize the first word. Since they are not proper nouns, it _would_ make more sense to capitalize _none_ of them (including not capitalizing the first), which would at least be defensible; however, it seems useful to follow the most common convention - after all, English is a living language. Luminifer (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is fine the way it is. Caps on the first one listed and then lower case after that. Matches other field formatting in other music related infoboxes. No need to go change it. Fair Deal (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a rather lengthly write-up on genre fiddling on my user page. It's far too long and I was hoping to cut it down, but now I may need to add more to it about all this! I took a quick look at Death Magnetic and in viewing the talk page and edit summaries I can see no discussion or argument over which genre should be first (although I'll take your word for it that they have been moved around), so I still question whether these moves were made because of the capitalization of whichever is first. It's possible the 2 genres in the infobox at the moment are both capitalized because they are on separate lines, which is another previously-debated issue altogether. There is actually a rule in the album infobox instructions that say only commas, not line breaks, should separate genres. If that rule were followed, this particular infobox might look better with mixed case. On the other hand, I think excluding the option of break separation is silly because it doesn't match the rules for the musical artist infobox, which allows either. (See above-mentioned user page write-up for more about that.) Back to the issue, I don't recommend saying "this is how it's done on another page" because we have so many examples of bad practices and broken rules at Wikipedia. You could look around and find at least one example to back up every bad editing practice you could ever think of. Similarly, it doesn't matter how other sites use capitalization in lists, and I'm sure we could find just as many that capitalize the way we do. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that wikipedia should either have a rule that (a) reduces the overall work required on the site, or (b) actually is in some way grammatically more correct than the other rules. The current rule makes no sense grammatically, and as far as I can determine has no precedence in any grammatical rulebook, or indeed any web site (please, find me just one to show me!). Some of the changes to the Death Magnetic page have involved swapping thrash and heavy metal (for whatever reason), capitalizing either of them, and now, separating them using line breaks as an excuse to once again capitalize them (they were previously separated by commas). I imagine these kinds of mini-feuds go unchecked (and aren't really even feuds) because no one really cares that much, but the fact that our rule goes against peoples' instincts mean that a lot of people are going to be putting it the 'other' way, and then other people are going to have to 'correct' it, and that's just a huge waste of manpower than could be better used, isn't it? It would be difficult to get hard numbers on this, but when three such notable sites as imdb, amazon, and allmusic all follow one rule, it's reasonable to assume people are going to want to do it that way themselves. Why should we continue to waste time correcting people because of an apparently established system? Luminifer (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Technically, the rules is correct as written, per the MOS. A counter-example would seem to be a vertical list, where each list item would be capitalized. I can't find an MOS entry for this, so I could very well be wrong, but Luminifer just mentioned people taking advantage of this. In any case, I don't think it's such a big deal, even though the lists are prominently displayed in the infoboxes. Can we just take the guideline out of the Project page? If we don't mention it at all, there would be less fighting. Some people would still be annoyed, but without a rule, they'd have less basis for reversion.-Freekee (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea - I hadn't realized that was even an option! I guess everything is. I suppose the counter-argument is that having a style guideline allows for mediation of arguments like these... It's hard to say which approach would work better - and I'm not sure if removing it altogether would solve the Death Magnetic problem.Luminifer (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: The link for the MOS that you supplied (thanks for that!), it goes to a page with no (interesting) content that I see, but has a link to this article which has the rule that I'm disputing. Did I miss something? (I feel like I did miss something based on what you said, so apologies if I'm just having a brain malfunction or such...) Luminifer (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to make it clear that the 'standard' I see in other places does not only apply to genre - it applies to any non-sentence based list of characteristics, like "Black and White", "Full Frame", etc. See the examples I listed above. Luminifer (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any place where anyone has said "I'm changing the order of genres (or inserting a line break) because I want to see this one capitalized". I think these changes were made because editors don't know there are rules.  Now that they know (from the talk page), let's see if the problem vanishes.  I have changed the Death Magnetic article to match the standards.  Also, you are certainly right to ask the other editors to use the talk page, so if further genre fiddling takes place without their doing so, you now have several good reasons to revert. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Less than 12 hours later, it's been fiddled again already. :( --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to pick on someone in particular, but the logic here: I think these changes were made because editors don't know there are rules. Now that they know (from the talk page) assumes a level of participation in wikipedia which I do not think is warranted - a lot of these changes are made by casual readers, hence the anonymous usernames.. In cases like these, I think this kind of change would be lessened only if wikipedia were to follow the standard of the rest of the web (which really does seem to have a standard - can someone find some counter-examples?)... Luminifer (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Featured_articles, every article I looked at there with non-proper nouns in the info box are in the same structure as genres are now ("Rock, pop", not "rock, pop", or "Rock, Pop".) Rehevkor ✉  19:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This makes sense - the high-visibility pages will almost certainly have someone familiar with wikipedia standards to make sure that they conform to them... What we're debating here is whether the standards actually make sense. Luminifer (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They make sense to me. I think you're overthinking this "sentence" idea. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think amazon, imdb, and allmusic are also 'overthinking' this "sentence" idea? What about all those anonymous editors who keep adding the caps to Death Magnetic? Luminifer (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect removing the guideline would cause a lot more trouble than keeping it, people need guidelines. It'll make things consistent too. Rehevkor ✉  19:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone but I for one only rearranged genres in Death Magnetic into alphabetical order when someone rearranged them in what seemed to be a POV edit. When genres are unsourced alphabetical is the most logical and neutral order. Rehevkor ✉  19:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't recall seeing genres listed in alphabetical order before. Since it is recommended we use as few as possible, with one being the ideal, I don't see this as becoming a rule.  I think it's better to list the one which best suits the artist first, and list a second if it's necessary to elaborate, or if the group changed their genre at some point in their career.  In the latter case, we would need to decide whether to list genres in chronological order, or put their current genre first, or list whichever was applicable the longest first, or choose which they are best known for and list it first.  The best choice varies from article to article, and since multiple genres should be discouraged, I don't think we should have any kind of rule or guideline about this.  Regarding the Death Magnetic article's choice, isn't thrash metal a sub-genre of heavy metal music?  Can there be thrash that isn't heavy metal?  If not, you don't need to have two genres, just use thrash. (I see on the article's talk page, that this was proposed before, and I don't see a good argument against the reason given.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If a band is particularly known for a specific variety of a genre, which (I think is common in metal), it makes sense to put that one first, even if there are other minor ones. But if there's any kind of dispute at all about which kind is foremost, they should either be alphabetic, or the broad genre first, like, metal, black metal, death metal. Personally, I don't think it needs to be limited to one, but should definitely be a low number. -Freekee (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting a primary genre first is an option, but then we may as well add primary genre arguments to the already increasing arguments on which genres are included in the first place. In the case of Death Magnetic I believe it's generally agreed (I may be imagining this) that it incorporates thrash metal and heavy metal pretty evenly. Rehevkor  ✉  21:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd know better than I would, I guess. If that's the case, it was a bad example. *shrug* -Freekee (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was wrong, some reasons were given for listing both heavy metal and thrash metal, even though it was acknowledged one is a sub-genre of the other, the reason being this album is mostly heavy metal with a little thrash in a few places (as claimed on the talk page). I guess a case was made for an exception, but in other situations I would recommend using just one. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, I just realized i posted the wrong link above. It should have been MOS on genre naming. Still not all that helpful, I know, but it at least proves that genres aren't to be capitalized unless another rule is in force. -Freekee (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That actually supports my theory - it _would_ be ridiculous to capitalize genres in those example sentences. What I _am_ suggesting is that non-sentence based lists do not follow the same capitalization rules as sentence-based lists. It seems (English is a living language, so unless someone can find a grammatical text that actually refers to these, I have to go by what I see) these are both valid. "Metallica is a heavy metal, punk, and ska band." (Obviously not true though). "Metallica: Genres: Heavy metal, Punk, Ska". All of those links I supplied above seem to support this - in fields other than genre as well, so maybe we should take this discussion elsewhere on wikipedia? Luminifer (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me say (again) that I also think it would be less confusing if we were to capitalize NONE of the genres (as "Genre" is already capitalized and is part of the reading-flow). Luminifer (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just came across something someone had their user page, which may be applicable as a comment on what's happening here. This was in reply to an argument which broke out into hostility (which has not happened here), and the reply was intended to calm the waters, and was not condescending; hopefully it won't be perceived as such if I post it here.  The user page had a link to a "history compare" page:  from which the following was stated (and I've put some non-applicable phrases in brackets): "{T}here's a common trend with some new editors on Wikipedia. These editors are usually knowledgeable about the controversial aspects of Wikipedia as an organization and as a collaborative community, but ... usually enter into a (stale dispute) with a complicated background and question the status quo. ... (These) editors are used to working with codified standards and thus rely on outside sources to substantiate any (novel) claim."  This reminded me of your insistance of using caps the way you see it used on other websites.  Wikipedia's standards are very well established here, and are too widespread to change.  Asking for a change this big, on this forum, is beating a dead horse.  Since a list by itself is not a sentence, it does not necessarily follow the rules of sentences (as you say), WP has responded to that by making a rule for lists where none exists outside our website (Amazon's rules, if we can call them rules, are just as arbitrary).  There is nothing wrong with WP's standard.  Saying that other editors are confused because they see caps used differently on other websites, therefore we should conform to those other standards, is to claim an established standard that really doesn't exist, and isn't universal.  But I recognize you have probably worked on other sites where it is a standard, and it looks right to you, while Wikipedia's does not.  I have to suggest your viewpoint is not as universal as you think it is, and if you work on here for a while, our standards will become familiar and won't look wrong.  Everyone eventually becomes familiar with the sites they work on, and if newbies are not following the rules, then they are probably coding randomly according to what seems a reasonable guess as to how it should be done, and not to a standard that you are alledging is used everywhere else.  (For example, new users have to learn that song titles are in double quotes, album titles are in italics, and need to learn how to make italics using Wikicode.  These are not universal standards outside WP either, but we insist upon them, and everyone learns it after a while.)  We have been supporting your complaints about certain specific things, but I see no support for the rule change you propose, and you're going to have to accept that we are happy with the existing rule. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well put, but you did assume a lot about me that was fairly incorrect. (I didn't take offense). I actually would have preferred it with all lowercase, including the first genre - this makes the most sense to me. When I saw the war going on at Death Magnetic, I decided to see if there _was_ any standard way of doing things - and I couldn't find anyplace that did it the way I like, nor could I find any way that does it the way wikipedia does it. I do need to ask this question : at which point does wikipedia decide that it made the wrong arbitrary decision and change (or eliminate) a policy, because there wasn't a (known to wikipedia editors) standard at the time the decision was made, but there is (to what degree?) a standard now? If a grammar book suddenly got published which had this rule in it, would wikipedia change its rules then? If not, then there is something somewhat backwards about the system, correct? (And incredibly inefficient - what I am trying to eliminate here is the number of wikipedia-loyalists (for lack of a better word) who feel they have to fix the capitalization issues on all of these pages that are bound to occur, because any outsider is not going to know about the arbitrary and non-standard wikipedia rules). *whew* (also, I'm not a newcomer - apparently this account has been contributing for nearly 3 years... which leads me to confusion when you say we are happy with the existing rule - who could you mean by we?) Luminifer (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (If you didn't think that part of the quote applied to me, then never mind). Luminifer (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My goal here is not to have wikipedia follow a standard I love, it's to reduce the amount of ridiculous corrections due to a standard that no-one familiar with the wikipedia standard is going to correctly guess (by the evidence I've seen). Luminifer (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In professional situations like this, it is usually acceptable to have the new rule enforced 'going forward' but not require that it be enforced retroactively. This would mean that no one would have to go fix the current genre listings, but that any changes should follow the new guideline, not the old one. (This is in regards to Wikipedia's standards are very well established here, and are too widespread to change).
 * Also, regarding this For example, new users have to learn that song titles are in double quotes, album titles are in italics, and need to learn how to make italics using Wikicode. These are not universal standards outside WP either, but we insist upon them, and everyone learns it after a while., you'll find if you go over entries that new users do NOT follow these standards, and that more familiar people have to go and fix them. Whether or not this is worth the effort is up for debate. (not here?) Luminifer (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking for actual links for the rules, I found (see the section on Lists, which, in that context, applies to numerical lists - but not that they reference Skillen, which apparently discusses this in greater detail. Does anyone have this?). This page  seems to agree with the nasa page, but goes into more detail - and also states explicitly that items in a non-sentence list should be capitalized. I think the problem happens because people are interpreting the genre comma-separated list as a sentence (while they interpret a CR-separated list as a true list). Luminifer (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are many Wikipedia standards that could be challenged. For example, many new users would object to this section being called "Genre titling rules", and say it should be "Genre Titling Rules", because it's the title of the section.  At WP, we don't regard it as a proper title, merely a phrase.  New users also have trouble understanding the reference lists, and I've spotted editors trying to add an "ibid" (which really is the universal standard in academia) and had to explain why it doesn't work on a Wiki.  (Basically, if another editor inserts a new ref between 2 existing ones, the "ibid" no longer refers to the one above it, and there is no way to keep track of when this problem happens.)  I mentioned italics for titles before; many guides state that italics and underlining are equivalent methods of highlighting, but only the first is used at Wikipedia.  We also have editors who think their ID or name should be visible in their article contributions, which is a standard on other sites, including Amazon.  And then there are all the content and sytle issues, such as adding content in the style of a blog, or posting an objection to "the paragraph above" instead of using the talk page.  Caps in a genre list pale by comparison!  I still don't see why you say the word "Genre" looks like part of the line; to me, it looks like a table heading, and is separate from the list itself.  Maybe it's because we're using different browsers, displaying the fonts a little differently?  And I still insist that if your recommendation were to be followed, nothing would improve; new users would continue to use arbirtrary standards (not necessarily the current one nor your proposal) until they become familiar with this site.  I don't want to keep arguing about this, because we're just repeating ourselves.  I'm just saying, at this point, that your suggestion on this one matter is not receiving support here, and is unlikely to go anywhere.  Yes, there are other pages where policy can be discussed, but I can't see much chance there either.  Have a look at the discussion pages for WP:MOS, the Manual of Style (probably the section on capitalization in particular), and WP:MUSTARD, the music article standards, if you are really intent on proceeding. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to save people like you a lot of unnecessary work - no one has provided any evidence that anything but the capitals-in-a-non-sentence-list form is commonly used on the internet - which suggests that people unfamiliar with this guide are going to be using that format, which then suggests that other people are going to want to waste time changing it. All you have done is presented arguments that are even more subjective than mine (I still don't see why you say the word "Genre" looks like part of the line), suggested that I have no experience on wikipedia, suggested that because it is not an absolute text-book proven grammatical standard (as far as anyone has found so far) that we should follow the arbitrary one that you haven't found a single off-site source to back up for precedence, and suggested that it is too much work to change (despite my solution of non-retroactive policy changes). It really looks like your arguments are weaker than mine. I'm not going to change it myself, but this discussion will certainly make wikipedia look as stubborn as it is reputed to be (which I have been trying to change for years). My main goal with this policy change is to lessen the number of anonymous contributions that need to be modified by wikipedia policy-nuts; I've presented a good amount of evidence that shows that the format I am suggesting (AFTER research) is much more standardized, and is likely to be more common by incoming contributors. You have presented no counter-evidence against this claim, you have just argued that it is meaningless. Luminifer (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry you're starting to take this personally. I acknowledge you are not new at Wikipedia.  When you first posted here, and at the Death Magnetic article, you seemed to be asking what the standards are, and when you were shown the guidelines, you seemed to be saying this was the first time you heard about them.   Now you are saying you've been campaigning for changes at WP for years, so clearly I got it wrong.
 * You misunderstood again. I'm not taking it personally - though you have been using your perception of my identity in your arguments, which does not seem relevant. Regarding the guidelines, over the years I have always been more of a content contributer than someone who cared about policy - and this is why; I knew there would be an ultra-conservative resistance to any change (as wikipedia is reputed to have). Luminifer (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with your contention that a big problem is going to clear up if we change the standards. I think the "problem" will remain exactly as it is, at best.  More likely, people will see standards in existing articles and be confused as to why the rules say something different.  And long-time editors will need to change their habits, which won't happen overnight.  If you want to see the problems that occur where we do change our standards, look at the flap over the removal of date linking, which was resisted by some, and over-enthusiastially embraced by others, who created bots to start making changes before there was consensus.  It was a terrible mess.


 * Most editors learn the in-house rules rather quickly, and have no problem following them once they learn what they are. In a sense, Wikipedia teaches flexibility in this area, which is needed for any "real world" technical writing, where every employer has his own in-house rules.


 * In short, proposals to change the rules only get seriously considered if a real integrity problem with an existing rule is demonstrated. The reasons you've given: (a) it's an in-house rule that is not followed elsewhere; (b) erroneous edits would decrease if the standards were changed; (both of these being your opinion) are not in the same class.  These reasons could be used to challenge any WP rule arbitrarily.  I'm just saying there is no chance of this rule being changed for these reasons. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please show me where in WP I'm just saying there is no chance of this rule being changed for these reasons. is backed up? Luminifer (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No response now? Luminifer (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with the 2 off-site guides you quoted, is that they are rules for specific places, just like Wikipedia's rules. The first is a standard for NASA documents.  The second is for a writing course, which establishes a set of rigid rules to be regarded as the only acceptable standard for the purposes of that course.  To quote from its section titled "Lists: General Guidelines": "In professional technical-writing contexts, you must use a specific style of lists, like the one presented in this chapter. This list style is standard, required format in this course. If you want to use a different style, get with your instructor." (italics added for emphasis) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Skillin is referenced by the nasa site, which is non-site specific. Luminifer (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well your second source acknowldeges that its method is not the only way it's done (but is the method required for this particular lesson of their course). And as to the other, I just took a look at the NASA page again, and all the references to Skillin are about punctuation, not caps, with the exception of this one statement: "Skillin et al. (1974) indicate that capitalizing nonsentence displayed items is optional, but we prefer the capitals."  Isn't that the opposite of what you are trying to claim? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, alphabetical lists always seem inherently neutral, I'd even use them in a referenced scenario for the following reasons:
 * Citations in infoboxes suck. They muddle up the code and if whatever is to be sourced through them can't be referenced in the article body (or the parent article about the act), something is going wrong to begin with.
 * People who feel strongly about their favorite genre being the right one to go first will try to outdo each other in terms of the number of sources. This only exacerbates the first issue.
 * Also, I don't recall any band ever playing the Trash Metal, so leaving most genres after the first uncapitalized only seems like proper grammar. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Making every genre lowercase is not the worst option. (Capitalizing every common noun in a horizontal list looks awful, the English language just doesn't do that.) However, sentence case is already used for almost everything on the entire site, including headings, body text, and all entries in all existing infoboxes. I can't think off-hand of anywhere on Wikipedia where sentence case is not used. It would be really inconsistent with the rest of the site if this one entry in one infobox was changed.
 * I think I'm pretty much repeating things others have said. But I just want to agree that sentence-case ("Punk, ska, metal") is the best way to do this, and it should be left the way it is. I agree that this guideline can be counterintuitive for new editors, but most of Wikipedia's policies are (WP:OR, WP:NFC, WP:VOTE, the list goes on and on). —Gendralman (Talk) 19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What's your reasoning for the sentence-case being best, though? Other than personal preference, I think it would make sense for wikipedia's policy to be a little more than arbitrary. If we can come up with a good explanation for sentence-case (I still see Genre: as the beginning of that sentence, but others don't see it that way, so it's subjective) and show precedence elsewhere, that'd be great... (I don't want to be hostile/argumentative, but what do you think of the fact that all the sites I listed above - amazon, imdb, etc. - use the capitalize the nouns approach.. I guess it's similar to how song titles often have every word capitalized)..Luminifer (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This issue doesn't apply to just genres. What's the general consensus regarding any list of items in an infobox field? One field that I commonly see with the same issue is the "Occupation" biographical infoboxes. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be much of a general consensus. There are about two votes on here for "genres are not proper nouns" with no further discussion of sentence/non-sentence structure, etc. There's one very argumentative, resistive user who wants to keep the status quo... there's one who's on the fence. There's me (who thinks that the current standard is just about the worst we could have)... and there are the tons of people who get their changes reverted when they capitalize genres (see Jethro Tull, Death Magnetic), and yet-unreverted places (Horslips, Manowar, Fugazi, Leslie West -- more than 50% of the random ones I am checking still have capitalized genres in some form.). Do you have a stance on the issue? Luminifer (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any list: same deal. Nothing is capitalized except the first word, and any proper nouns. -Freekee (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But why capitalize the first word if it's not a sentence? and why isn't "Genre" considered the first word, since it's really the first word in the reading-flow? (I'm trying to be discussive, not argumentative, so please don't take it the wrong way) Luminifer (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The "status quo" is a decent means of dealing with an ambiguous and ultimately entirely trivial issue. As a general rule we treat each field in infoboxes as if they were sentences (even though they're not). That's why we capitalize the first letter of the first word. It's not just the albums infobox that does it, nearly every infobox I've used does (artist, song, person, film, etc.). The other genres aren't capitalized because genres aren't proper nouns. This whole thing is just making a mountain out of a molehill. Following the template guidelines for capitalization is easy and keeps consistency throughout the project. If particular articles (Death Magnetic) are having edit wars over this, try to reach consensus on the talk page. If the basis of the argument is which genre to list first, work on consensus towards that. "Genre" is not the first word; it is the name of the field. If it were a table and "Genre" were the title of a particular column, the cells within that column would still follow typical capitalization rules. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My goal here is to save everyone a lot of work. Wikipedia's standards are arbitrarily different from what appears to be a nonstated standard across the web - no one has found any counter-examples yet. By having an arbitrary standard that differs from the apparent norm, wikipedia is (supposedly) forcing newcomers to learn this standard, but in actuality most contributors are fairly casual and won't bother. This results in non-standard pages (like the ones I listed above), which wikipedia style-people will have to go manually correct. This seems like a lot of extra work for nothing, doesn't it? Luminifer (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

According to MOS:LIST not even the first should be capitalised. --JD554 (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting - that was my initial suspicion. It seems we have two options other than what we have now - one that's backed up by documentation, and one that's backed up by common usage? Either seems better than the "neither" we currently have, no? Luminifer (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Come on, use common sense. A list in an infobox is not the same as a list within the article body. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would it need to be different? MOS:LIST doesn't mention that it isn't relevant to infoboxes. I have no strong feelings, just pointing it out. --JD554 (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if that MOS:LIST is meant to apply to infoboxes, we can decide by consensus that it shouldn't apply to the genre field. Anyway, IllaZilla suggests that the de facto standard for all other infobox fields seems to be: Capitalize the first letter, leave the rest in lower case (except proper nouns). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm arguing is that the 'de facto standard' for infobox fields was not well thought out and causes extra work for people. Is there a better place to do that? Luminifer (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes are tables, not lists. Lists have one column, tables have more than one column. From a stylistic standpoint, anything that applies to tables in general should apply to infoboxes and vice versa. So if you really want to win this, get a MOS:Tables (which doesn't exist) made. Then everything would be consistent. Right now, debating over the genre field specifically is missing the point. Look at the non-infobox tables on Agrippina (opera), Meningitis, and Katie Holmes. Those are all featured articles and they all use different capitalization rules for tables. Eventually someone's going to want to standardize them, and when that happens, it's going to apply to infoboxes too. If you're really passionate about this, you might as well get the ball rolling.
 * I stand by my opinion that 1) there's no correct (i.e. formally logical) way, and 2) all caps is definitely, definitely wrong. My hunch is that if there were a Wikipedia-wide standardization of tables (which is unlikely but not impossible), the way meningitis does it would win out: Sentence case for header fields, lowercase for all other fields. In that case, genre would look the way you want it to. I think that's your only possibility of winning this rationally, because in terms of pure aesthetics, you're clearly in the minority.
 * And I just don't buy the "new editors keep doing x, so we should make x the standard" — that's not a good precedent. —Gendralman (Talk) 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help - I actually agree that there appears to be no 'correct' way to do it - but, as I've said, the way we have it now makes the least sense out of the possibilities I can think of. What is your response to my claim that all of the other sites seem to use the capitalize-the-words (or phrases) system, like amazon, imdb, allmusic? I don't necessarily like it either, I'm just curious how you think that enters into this discussion. Luminifer (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Allmusic capitalizes their articles on the genres (e.g. Heavy Metal not heavy metal); so does IMDb (e.g. Film-Noir not film noir). Don't even get me started on Amazon... that cluttered ugly mess is not something we should be trying to emulate! I can't even find the list you are referring to. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My simple response is that they're all doing it wrong. Not being proper nouns, genre names should definitly not have every starting letter capitalized (ie "Heavy Metal"), and they should only have their first letter capitalized when they are the first word in a sentence (their use in tables here is the ambiguity, and I'm not considering that when referring to these other websites). If these sites were put under the scrutiny of copyeditors, you can bet that'd be something that would be fixed. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

One important factor we should take into consideration here is aesthetics. The genre field is the only field in the info box that is not a name/proper noun/number. It makes sense to capitalise the first letter otherwise it just looks out of place. Rehevkor ✉  14:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you mean just the first genre, or all of them, but the same reasoning could be applied to either case... and, most likely was on sites like amazon. Luminifer (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Can we not change it at all please? I can't be enforcing one part of policy and then suddenly it changes and I'm wrong! How embarrassing would that be? It just doesn't hurt people if it stays the same and it doesn't "look bad" or "make you puke" or whatever. Scarian  Call me Pat!  11:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * .. not being able to admit that you were following a confusing and nonstandard policy isn't really a good reason not to change that policy, is it? Luminifer (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said I couldn't follow it...? I just said I'd hate to be wrong if it changed. If it's going to destroy the encyclopaedia then fine, but is it really going to? Hand on heart? Or is this just a nit-picking sort of thing? Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT
Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Inserting a soundbite into an album article
I have seen in some of the featured album articles that soundbites of tracks have been inserted. I am in the process of creating an article that I hope will one day be of featured status. How could I place the soundbites in the article, assuming that I know very little about sound files? --Lost Fugitive (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a start: Creation and usage of media files. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't download the software because my system does not meet the requirements. It would be appreciated if anybody could upload the soundbites for me so we could help elevate this article to featured status.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to. Let me know what you need. —Gendralman (Talk) 00:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I need "She Dances with her Shadow" by BlackHawk and "Nobody's Fool" also by BlackHawk to demonstrate the unique vocal expression of the group and the theme of the album Love & Gravity. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here you go:
 * BlackHawk - Love and Gravity - She Dances with Her Shadow (clip).ogg
 * BlackHawk - Love and Gravity - Nobody's Fool (clip).ogg
 * They can be inserted into the article with the template Template:Listen. —Gendralman (Talk) 00:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I believe you deserve a barnstar.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! —Gendralman (Talk) 01:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Chronology
I would like to know what is meant by the chronology section here. I was wondering if studio albums, EPs, singles and any other of the same type should be linked together, individually for each type of course. I know singles and studio albums/albums etc should but I don't know of the other types. Also, would it be incorrect for the chronology to include EPs and studio albums? in chronological order of course? FireCrystal (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That was my interpretation - that EPs and LPs should be listed together - as long as neither is a compilation album, and contains only (or, I guess, mostly) new materal... Luminifer (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe LPs and EPs should be in the same chronology. Whereas in the US and EP generally qualifies for the albums chart, in the UK (at least) they generally qualify for the singles chart. I believe the intention is that each type of release - studio album, live album, compilation, soundtrack, EP, single, etc. - should have their own chronology. --JD554 (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think EPs are generally shorter versions of albums, and therefore are fine to be included in album chronologies. JD, whose intention are you saying it is to have separate chronologies? Though it's always been my contention that live albums, and especially compilations, should not be included in the chronologies, I don't believe there's consensus for that, regardless of what the project guidelines may say. -Freekee (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In practice, I almost always include live albums in the chronology but not EPs. However, in the chronology of the EP itself I generally include the albums, as I find it helpful in establishing chronological context (where the EP falls between the artist's albums). I'd probably be in favor of just including EPs and live albums in the chronology all the time. Singles no, because they are generally drawn from albums and thus merely supplemental to the albums themselves. EPs, however, are generally stand-alone releases of new or otherwise non-album material; they seem important enough to be in the chronology (at least in the case of punk/alternative bands, which is my primary area of interest). I'm not sure who decided that live albums weren't important enough to be considered part of the chronology. Most of the time they are major releases with a high degree of significance to the artist's catalog. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It really depends on the artist, and the type of EP. 7-inch 4-song EPs of the 1950s and 1960s, and 12 inch or CD EPs that are really just extended singles with more than 2 songs, don't belong with album chronologies.  But many independent bands put out an EP as their first issue (because they may not be able to afford to make a full album) with several significant songs, and it becomes regarded as an important component of their body of work, at least until it becomes re-issued as a full album with additional tracks added, and such a release could be included.  For this reason, we don't have any hard rules.  If there is disagreement over this in a certain article, let us know, and we may be able to offer an opinion. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a great point. There ARE two distinct kinds of "EPs" -- the "short LP", and the "long single". I guess it's up to the individual cases as to which kind it is, and it should be listed accordingly. (FYI this whole question came up because people (including me!) would add Anthrax's studio-album-style EPs to the studio album chronology, and a lot of people liked to revert those changes. It sounds like the consensus here, though, is that they should be included - since they are really mini-LPs). Luminifer (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that (1) the project guidelines don't specifically exclude EPs from the chron, and that (2) EPs specifically fall under the auspices of the Albums Project. It certainly not a stretch to include EPs in the album chron. As I mentioned, I'm not a fan of including certain album types, but I've never considered leaving out EPs (except for the maxi-single types). -Freekee (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't need any rules for this. Just let it be settled on a case-by-case basis. For some bands, it will make sense to include EPs (e.g. Minor Threat), for others, it won't (e.g. The Beatles). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I thought more about this, I think the case-by-case basis for bands makes sense here and EPs with more than 4 songs can be seen as part of the discog as a semi-LP and single-EPs with 2 or 3 songs can't. I also agree with everthing Illazilla said. Though this comes to another question. If a band's EPs are not seen as important as their studio albums (or known) should the EPs then have their own chronology? Maybe a case-by-case basis can be used for live albums as well. So as for the source of the problem, in Anthrax's case, can their EPs be listed with the studio albums? I'm also thinking their live albums can be added as well because they seem important to their discog and not just another live album. FireCrystal (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed... Really, we don't even need to think about the number of songs - it's pretty obvious if an EP is functioning as a mini-album or a maxi-single in most cases. I'm not sure why people seem to so often misinterpret the intent of the text in the chronology section. Luminifer (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This can be done with the "extra chronology" functionality of the album infobox. And the number of songs on a release shouldn't matter—just like my previous example, it might make sense for some bands to include 2- and 3-song releases or their singles in the chronology (I'm thinking bands from before the 60s, some punk bands, etc.). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just changed the Anthrax chronology and Wiki libs immediately reverted them. I went to Wikilibs' talk page to discuss, (1) pointing out that this discussion already took place and reached a consensus, and (2) pointing out the chronology NEVER had the rule they are even talking about (separating EPs and LPs). They are being unresponsive literally now. I'd like to check to see if anyone thinks I missed something before I go making some other wiki person mad. (This site needs a lot LESS hostility, not more). Any help would be appreciated. Luminifer (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You suggest on 's talk page that there was consensus for the chronology to include EPs considered mini-albums. I find this completely disingenuous—you were the only one to suggest we do this. There simply was no consensus. Only Freekee had anything to say about it, and Freekee was ambivalent about the matter. Generally EPs and LPs are kept separate, and they probably should be for the Anthrax chronology. Again, there wasn't really a consensus on anything here, this discussion was more of a clarification of current practices. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you not notice FireCrystal and A Knight Who Says Ni's responses? Luminifer (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, so the consensus was that these things should be handled on a case-by-case basis. You will still need to establish why the Anthrax EPs should be in the chronology. I'd suggest discussing it on the band's talk page, or one of the album talk pages, and leave consensus up to the people who maintain Anthrax-related articles. It will show up on their watchlist or whatever. If, after much discussion, there is no consensus, then request input here. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Singles...?
Can anyone add a list of released Singles for this album...? It IS a missing part, isn't it? It's usually attached to the main album "generalities" table, so why not start there...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.233.86.124 (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It might help if you said which album, better yet would be a link to it's article. --JD554 (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably Psychédélices, the only article edited by anyone at this IP. It's strange that this person would assume we knew that though. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, it looks like the IP was bold in the end. --JD554 (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Most likely the user went to the article's talk page, saw our project banner at the top, and thought he was being told to post here, rather than there. Stranger / misplaced questions from IPs are common at the New User Help page, for instance. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Future albums
Hi.

While assessing the articles for the upcoming albums i saw a "Future" tag in the rating template for the EMO Wikiproject, should`t we use it too? Zidane tribal (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm the coordinator of WP:EMO, so I suppose I'm the one responsible for the future tag you saw. It's an infrequently used class across WP, but I find it useful for assessing articles about upcoming albums (or in other projects, upcoming games, films, etc.). This places them in a future-class project category, which can be handy for keeping track of these types of articles and then coming back to assess them properly after the product is released. I find that the standard assessement ratings are pretty useless when it comes to upcoming events, as they're almost always going to be either stub or start and pretty much de facto can't reach GA or FA until after the thing is released and some time has passed such that reviews/critical analysis/historical & cultural significance can be adequately discussed in the article. The future class is sort of a holding pattern class for these articles until their subjects are released. I'm certain there are a large number of articles about upcoming albums, so perhaps it would be a useful class for this project. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It surely would be useful, the only thing is that i don`t know how to implement it, how can i make the project template "recognize" the tag?, of course, this if the fellow member accept the tag in the first place.?


 * It's pretty easy. You just have to apply a custom mask to the project banner & then create the category. I'd be happy to do it if the project decides that it's something we want. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, then, we will wait for a little feedback and then proceed. Zidane tribal (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I'm finding assessment on anything under GA class to be not exceedingly useful, but categorizing future releases would be quite handy. -Freekee (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That`s good enough to me, go ahead IllaZilla. BTW, i have assessed more than 5000 album articles and i think is quite useful. Zidane tribal (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll get on it. I'll just set the custom mask to accept all of the available classes (future, project, merge, etc.). We can always remove any that we don't want. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Zidane, that's an awesome assessment count. Though I mentioned I thought that the lower assessment classes are not very useful, that doesn't stop me from using them. I've done maybe hundreds of assessments around stub and start. I wish we could get some concerted effort together for the higher levels. Anyway... starting new section... -Freekee (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, I've added the custom mask so that we can now use the full range of available assessments, and I've created all of the necessary categories for the articles to be placed in. I've also updated the assessment section of the project to account for these new classes. See WP:ALBUM/A for details.
 * P.S. In doing this it occurred to me that we don't have an albums portal. I have some experience building portals; I might try to create one in the near future. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, now we can categorize everything, i`m sure every member will find it useful, i`ll get using them right away. Thanks. Zidane tribal (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Effort to improve Stubs to Starts?
There are only 7000 articles as high as start class, and still well 36,000 stubs (and around 30,000 unassessed). To me, start class is pretty much the minimum level to be considered informational. You'd think that if anyone has gone through the work to start an article, that they'd have the album, and anyone who has the album should be able to get an article nearly to start class. Is this true? I see so many stubs with nothing but a tracklisting and three fields in the infobox. You'd think they could at least get a personnel section in, if not a decent lead paragraph.

The reason I ask this, is that I had a thought about notifying the stub creators of what it takes to improve the article to a reasonable level. Maybe make a template that could be placed by a bot, giving the basic guidelines on what their article needs. Kind of a wild idea I had. Not sure if it would be helpful, annoying or impractical, but I thought I'd throw it out there. -Freekee (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I`m with you, i`ve even see stubs that only have a lead paragraph NOT EVEN track listing, and believe me i work hard to upgrade them, i lost count of how many stubs i have added personnel section and/or track lengths and/or authorship, i know is not exactly accord to the guideline that says a person who has contributed can`t assess the articles but i don`t think nobody gets affected. Now on the how to get users to stop creating lame stubs or working them up, i think the stub template does something, you know "you can help Wikipedia by expanding it" but your idea is not that wild, it could be possible to make a bot that when an article is declared a stub place a link to the project page, letting him know how to make a better article. Could work but if you ask me there is nothing like raw human effort. Zidane tribal (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is the Albums template, and the direction to this project, as well as the stub template in article space, but the idea behind this is that if the new author knew how little work it was to improve the article to Start, and how important it was to get it there, they just might make that effort. This template could be placed on the usertalk page, for a little more personal message. It could be substituted, and look just like a normal comment, rather than a shiny box with graphics, and include a welcome message, if there is none already.
 * How many of these stubs are created by IPs?
 * Self-assessments are no problem, for stub and start class articles, since the guidelines are fairly rigid. The only gray area for newbies is the "lead section giving an overview of the album." Personally, I think it needs to be more than a couple of sentences. -Freekee (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I right by saying that Alli Mia Fora is a stub while Best of + is start? I think the problem might be that people either don't know about assessing, don't know the reasons for it/why should they assess?, or just plain don't know how to. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On account to the coment by Freekee, the idea of placing a message in the user page sounds good, it could get us a lot of new and eager members but i wouldn't like the message to become like the BetacommandBot warnings, just messages plaguing thousands of talk pages, but the idea is definitely good. And on the question by Grk1011/Stephen, BOTH articles are Stub, neither of them has personnel section. Zidane tribal (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny, the assessment guidelines seem to have changed a little bit since the last time I saw them. Also note that Start doesn't require a personnel section, just to mention them someplace.
 * I definitely agree that the message not sound like it's coming from a bot. It should sound friendly, and it may not even mention the assessment process. It could explain the minimal amount of info an article needs to be helpful.
 * IMO, album stubs aren't much help. In most areas of WP, stubs are good, because it gives readers something, and many of these topics are hard to find anywhere else. With albums, however, there's so much good info available elsewhere, whether it's allmusic, the artist's own site or a fansite. People look here first because this is always where they look first, and then they go elsewhere when they see a stub. A start should give all the basic info, but won't go into commentary. And like I said, anyone who starts a stub, should have enough info to get it to a start. Look at the assessment numbers. We have 73,108 total albums. That sounds awesome. But 27943 are unassessed (mostly stubs, I would guess), and 36,749 are rated stub. That's only 8416 non-stub articles. I would guess less than 15% of our articles are better than stubs. That's not good. I'd like to do something about this. -Freekee (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

←I'm game to help out. I've been missing writing article content (sometimes, these janitor tools take all the fun out of Wikipedia :P). Upgrading from stub -> start is a small enough time investment than I can probably do that without falling behind on my tool use. Shall we form a task force or just dive in? I'm not sure I can manage 36,749. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I`ve never changed the guidelines myself but the changes that have occurred in since i started assessing have been to allow even more crappy stubs to become starts, just because we want less articles to have Stub tags doesn`t mean we should lower our standards, personally i feel bad every time i have to "Start" an article without track lengths, if it were up to me an "Start: should have personnel, authorship and track lengths, fours fields in the infobox, the two categories and the lead section. I know it looks like a lot of work (and it sure is) but even if we get people to help us with the message only hard work would reduce the number of stubs. Zidane tribal (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, You have no idea how happy i am to hear you talk like that, for almost a year i`ve been working alone (on assessing unassessed articles rather than upgrading stubs), good to hear we are going to dive in. Zidane tribal (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that feeling. :) You were one of the reasons that I stopped. :D Not because I don't value it, but because copyvio work is so time consuming. But, sure, I'm in. And I think it's interesting that we evidently posted at the same time with no edit conflict. Edit conflicts baffle me. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that it's going to be easy. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Effort to improve Stubs to Starts? - section break

 * Re: the assessment descriptions – When I updated the assessment page yesterday I tweaked the wording, though I don't think I altered the intent substantially. The previous version said that Start had "Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient)". The new wording says "Reference to at least primary personnel by name within the article body." I felt that the bit about navboxes wasn't really necessary. What we're going for (I think) is the the performers are named somewhere in the main text, even if there isn't a Personnel section yet. Other than that I think the wording is the same. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But we don't need it in the main text. A personnel section is fine. The point of the start criteria was that even if it wasn't properly formatted, mention was sufficient. (I've restored the older language for now, pending further discussion.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but starts don't have personnel sections. That's the distinguishing factor (as far as personnel) between Start and C. A Start mentions the personnel somewhere with the text (other than a navbox); a C has a separate Personnel section. I didn't change that; AFAIK it's been worded that way for a long time. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe i`m wrong but i have NEVER rated a single start without personnel section. Zidane tribal (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Starts can have personnel sections, but they don't have to. Article bodies, by contrast, never have to mention personnel. The difference between Start and C as far as personnel is that Start mentions primary personnel, while C mentions performers, including guest musicians. Also, C must be in a "personnel section", while Start may or may not be. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is no reason why the members could be mentioned in the article body, since is way more reader-friendly to be in a list and that`s the way is specified in the guidelines. Zidane tribal (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There isn't, really, which is why the personnel section was required to meet at least a C. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess i`m asking too much from start, perhaps i should calm down a little bit, on contrast the example given at "Start" Meet The Beatles is way more than a simple "Start", don`t you think. Zidane tribal (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

←You're probably right about that, it ought to be reassessed. I chose it rather randomly from Category:Start-Class Album articles. I'd say the one quality that hovers it between Start & C is "lacks adequate reliable sources", as it has only 3 citation & they're all to the same source. But otherwise I'd say it's a C. Perhaps something like TV Party (EP) would be a better example of a start. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm often a bit fuzzy on assessments. References, length, number of sections... it's all so complicated! :-) Sometimes I'll do a few, and then decide in the next few, that I was being too lenient. And then I give up. Sometimes I'll give a pass to certain criteria. Like, I'll rate compilations as Start if they're only missing the personnel section. How about for the personnel criterion, "Reference to at least primary personnel by name in either the article text or a personnel section." How do you feel about the lead section? How much info should be in it? "Albumname is an album by bandname, that was released in year." Is that enough? I used to require more, but that was probably before C class. For the reasons that started this whole discussion, I think an article should be able to be improved to Start class using the album itself (in general, since not all records have that much info in the booklet). The only other piece of info that we might want to move from C to Start is track author. You'd think that would be in the CD booklet. Not sure. -Freekee (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the revision for personnel, but I'd like to keep the note that the bandbox is not enough, if that meets consensus. I've seen a lot of articles that seemed to think this could replace the personnel section. I can usually get track author from Allmusic, but often I'm not working on CDs I own. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, with all the tools we have, Allmusic, the album itself, Coveralia (i don`t know if you know that one, is a site containing the front and back covers of albums, not as big as Allmusic, but could be useful), band sites, fan sites, amazon, in a word the internet; i don`t think there`s any reason why an article shouldn`t have track lengths, producer, album length, genre, release date, authorship and a basic personnel section. That being said, If by consensus its decided to "forgive" an article for lacking proper personnel section, authorship or a lead section consisting in only a phrase, we will, of course, work with that, also i don`t think that we should let our desire for lower the number of stubs affect our standards. This is my opinion on the matter. Sorry if by any chance i sound like a jerkZidane tribal (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, a lot of particularly albums don't have substantial coverage on the internet, even when they are notable. And is "producer" really that essential for your average reader? While I'm all for raising the bar as we go, I don't think we need to bog down on the nitty gritty at the distinction between stub & start. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All i`m saying is that when we hit the long list of stubs we could differ on the Must have of starts, which could lead to one of the members rating an album start an article which could not deserve it. So all i want is a consensus on the personnel section and track lengths. Thanks you. Zidane tribal (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Specifically? Are you asking if a personnel section is required for start class, or if it doesn't matter how they're listed? I go with the latter, which is the current guideline. C class requires the separate section. And are you asking whether the track times should be included for start class? I would say not, since current guideline asks for them for C class.
 * For personnel, Start requires a mention somewhere of the primary performers. C requires a section listing primary and guests. B requires full list, including technical personnel.
 * But like I said, I'm lenient on the personnel for certain articles. Today I found a 4 CD box set listed as a stub. There is no way someone is list all the musicians. And the set was by Crosby, Stills & Nash, so it should be fairly obvious who the primary musicians were. Also, I found several stubs tonight that I promoted to Starts when I decided that they were by solo artists, without backing musicians. -Freekee (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate being a hard-ass but on the matter particularly of that 4 CD set, it was on the list of unassessed articles, i was going to work on it, because i don`t think is a start right now and the link to Allmusic has enough info, it doesn`t matter if it is "fairly obvious who the primary musicians were", by that logic, the Navbox would suffice. Zidane tribal (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know which 4 CD set is in question, but I believe it may have been you, Freekee, who recommended to me a long time ago that I WP:IAR on an article that would fail a rating on a single technicality when it otherwise clearly warranted a higher grade. Sorry if I'm misattributing. :) I've done that a few times. Since the C class came in, though, I haven't had to much. If I found an article that was a B except that it had the Navbox, I would probably grade it a C and put a note on the talk page for the contributors to handle it. Or add the personnel section myself, since (for the purposes of assessment) I wouldn't consider that my having contributed to the article any more than my adding categories to it is. :)


 * But as our assessment currently stands, track lengths are required for C class, but not for start. It doesn't take much to meet "start" class. For instance, by my interpretation, I raised L Sid to start yesterday. By the way, cover art is not required for Start class, but I'm going for it anyway. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For L Sid, it definitely meets Start class, and *almost* meets C class. Per the C criteria, it has a reasonably complete infobox, including cover art, a track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs and a "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians (it actually meets B class personnel criteria). It's only missing "At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section)." So, awesome! -Freekee (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if that was me, but it sounds like something I'd say. But that was probably a while back, and since the addition of C class, I think there's a little less leeway needed. The album in question is CSN (box set). To be more specific about ignoring that rule for this case, I feel that the personnel are difficult to find for many compilations, especially acts with no set backing bands. They're also difficult to add. Do you have one track list section, and then another section of personnel by track? And this particular one has 117 songs. I would be more strict on the higher classes, but I'll let it go for compilations at start class. Incidentally, I have heard of album articles going to GA or FA without a personnel section, but those ratings don't come from the project. -Freekee (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like i was wrong all along, surely i misread the guidelines, when i assesse an article i got in my mind an article like L Sid, usually anything under this becomes stub to me, exactly as Freekee says, to me the difference between s Start and a C is only "At least one section of prose", my bad. Surely will be a lot of stubs in the list that will actually be Start. Zidane tribal (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. Almost C class isn't quite C class. :) I would have rated L Sid a start if it just mentioned primary performers, but I figure as long as I'm there, why stop with primary performers? Similarly, we don't have to IAR on CSN (box set) anymore. :) I probably would have given that a "start" because it does mention the primary performers in the lead. I didn't count, but I'd bet my longest personnel section remains this one. --Moonriddengirl (talk)


 * OK, then i guess i`ll be more flexible on the Starts, but i`ll definitely not lower the effort the make every article the best i can :). (this is mine, I did count 200+). Zidane tribal (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like the perfect answer, to me. :-) I wonder if anyone else has an opinion on leniency regarding assessments. -Freekee (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've always been fairly strict with them, which is why I was happy when the C class was added, because there were so many articles that were better than "start" but clearly not yet "B." I don't get that hung up about material in the infobox. For example, I wouldn't withhold a "B" because the infobox doesn't note where an album was recorded (and I see I'm not alone in that ), but I also wouldn't elevate an article from C to B that had only information on performers and didn't cover technical personnel. I think the dividing line between "stub" and "start" is fairly thin. To me, it's a start if it has: (a) infobox with some information, with or without cover art, (b) a track listing, with or without track times and authors, (c) the names of the primary performer(s), (d) minimal categorization, and (e) a lead that says what it is, who it's by, and when it came out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

←I concur with Moonriddengirl; I'd rate such an article as start. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)