Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 37

Album cover size
How strictly enforced is the suggestion that album covers should be no larger than 300 pixels on one side (WP:Albums)? I ask because on the project page, the example given is a Nirvana album, and that image is 600 × 594 in size. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The infobox is written in such a way that if a Cover size greater than 200 is specified, it's forced to 200. 200 is also used if Cover size is omitted.
 * What does cause trouble is if you don't specify the width as a bare integer; ie 300px will put the page into hidden Category:ParserFunction errors, as will 300×300, whereas 300 won't (and will also be treated as if 200 had been passed). -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The guideline is there due to fair use concerns; the example image is in the public domain and does not fall under fair use. Since 99% of album covers are non-free, and their purpose of use is for the infobox, we are encouraging editors not to upload images much larger than what is needed for the infobox. The Nirvana example is an exception, as it does not pass the threshold of originality to be copyrightable (consisting of only simple text); that's why we're able to use it on the template page as an example. We wouldn't be able to use a non-free image in that manner. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your responses! –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  10:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Muze info
Product/CD info by Muze has been removed from Tower.com product pages, which are used as sources for review snippets. (ex. Only Built 4 Cuban Linx...) Anyone feel like helping replace the Tower.com links with product pages from other sites, such as Cdwow, silverplatters or 7digital? Dan56 (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

New RollingStone URL
Rolling Stone's site recently had its url's changed and it is difficult to find older reviews, but even more hard to cite the new url's, as they include brackets ("[", "]") in the links, which cuts off the whole url from being an external link in a citation; such as with this link http://www.rollingstone.com/music/reviews/album/;kw=[14339,94931] (the last characters that are not blue r supposed to be part of the url). Is there some trick around this? Dan56 (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like they'll have to be encoded with  and , like  . —Gendralman (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Their redesign is god-awful and practically unnavigable. Is there a way for WP to communicate to them that their redesign has broken thousands of links to their past content? Perhaps there would be a way for them to provide backlinks to the old content, or at least to fix their brackets-in-urls nonsense. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Their contact page provides no email for website problems. I'm going to fire out an email to every address at the site, and make up a few like ,  , and  . Hopefully someone will get it. —Gendralman (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol, so I'm not the only one whose not in favor of Rolling Stone's new page lay out. If anyone notices their page re-posting old articles and reviews, please let us know. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Has anybody received a response from Rolling Stone about this issue yet? Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, believe me, their craptacular redesign has been noticed. In my opinion, this is one of the worst re-designs of a website in the history of the web. Their website is practically unusable and years of valuable content has simply disappeared. Various new pages display stray HTML elements (e.g.  ), while some artists' profiles have incorrect information (e.g. inaccurate album art and review scores). It's a disaster. I hope somebody lost their job over this. In the meantime, I think everyone should be looking to replace their references with versions that have been archived on archive.org. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How far back does the Internet Wayback go though? I've often had many difficulties in finding any articles from the last few years preserved on there; part of the reason why I try to preserve them myself. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It goes back to 1996 (or it can), but not everything has been archived. Probably only the most visited areas of a website are archived (which might explain why some Rolling Stone articles and not others from past years have been archived)). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant what is the most recent that pages have been archived. I know that in searching for link repairs for the U2 360° Tour, I had no luck with it for the Rolling Stone articles. If it is only the highest-traffic areas that are archived I suppose it is the reason why these pages have seemingly vanished forever. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anything archived in 2009, so presumably the archive is only as recent as some part of 2008. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wayback machine only archives web pages from six months back or more, no sooner than that. But it is weird that they haven't archived anything from '09. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Gendralman, thanks for the %5B and %5D suggestion. I thought the issue was only missing articles, I didn't realize their URLs has brackets in them. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  22:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How on Earth do French certifications work?
Someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old, because I simply don't get it. I'm trying to determine what the correct certification for Achtung Baby is, but SNEP seems to be confusing me. In 1995, the album was certified double platinum, but a year later, it was certified platinum.

According to the SNEP website, they currently certify like this:
 * Gold - 50,000
 * Platinum - 100,000
 * 2x Platinum - 200,000
 * 3x Platinum - 300,000
 * Diamond - 500,000

Well, from reading the SNEP Wikipedia article, it seems as if they have re-done their certifications several times. In 1995-1996, this is what the certifications would have been like:
 * Gold - 100,000
 * Double Gold - 200,000
 * Platinum - 300,000
 * 2x Platinum - 600,000
 * 3x Platinum - 900,000
 * Diamond - 1,000,000

Does this mean that the album was certified for 900,000 copies in 1996? Or was the platinum certification in 1996 not an additional certification, but one that was retroactive to the album's release? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't look at those links from work, but I'm guessing you're looking at certifications in two different countries, perhaps? Could there be multiple countries that fall under the umbrella of SNEP? Torchiest talk/contribs 16:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Y2kcrazyjoker4, IMHO it is unhelpful to ask the same question at two different places, as you did with this one. It is better to ask it where it most logically fit in (which would be WT:CHARTS in this case) and simply point people to that place if needed. That keeps discussions focused and avoids that different people spend their valuable time answering the same thing. – Ib  Leo (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Simple word is not taken as article page, but the disambiguation page has it.
I don't know if I can explain this well: I remember reading that for articles with a title like "Confessions", if there isn't an article called like that yet, when creating it, you don't need to specify in parenthesis what it is. For example "Confessions (album)". However in this case "Confessions" the article is a disambiguation page (is it one even if the article doesn't say so in the title?). I have seen disambiguation pages that are called "the title of the article (disambiguation)" and some like "Confessions" that don't. Is there a rule? Can I "move" the content of "Confessions" as it stands now, to a new page called "Confessions (disambiguation)"? Dollvalley (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's more of a question for WikiProject Disambiguation than WikiProject Albums, but no the disambiguation page should stay at Confessions because there is no primary topic. Not all disambiguation pages use (disambiguation) in the title. I hope this answers your question. Anemone  Projectors  23:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems more, from what I've seen, who came first snatched the simple article title, as I haven't noticed many examples of article pages with "simple" titles being the biggest representative or most meaningful of the word. Dollvalley (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually the page is moved when more articles appear, but not always. Probably should be in most cases. But again this is about disambiguation, not albums! Anemone  Projectors  00:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see recent related discussion a bit further up this page. It confirms AnemoneProjectors' statement that the primary topic should be the subject of the article "without brackets". If there is no primary topic, it should be a disambiguation page. WP:D is the ruling guideline. – Ib Leo (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Review site: About.com
I got redirected here looking for the talk page for WikiProject Albums/Review sites, wanting to propose About.com as a professional review site. Where can I do that? Dan56 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You can do that here, conveniently. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 02:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

❌ – no rationale provided. – Ib Leo (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Review site: The Music Fix
Would it be possible to add The Music Fix (http://www.themusicfix.co.uk) as a professional review site? We're highly respected with links within the industry and mentions in the mainstream media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.18.255 (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that such request from a staff member ("We're...") is a conflict of interest which is highly discouraged here on Wikipedia. I would feel much more comfortable if this request came from someone not affiliated with the site. – Ib Leo (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IbLeo, 94.8.18 is already following correct procedure as indicated in WP:COI. Instead of adding the links themselves, they are encouraged to bring content suggestions to discussion pages, like this.  94.8.18, could you please elaborate on the nature of your website, so we can better evaluate it in light of the Wikipedia policies of WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RS? &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 14:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." So IP 94.8.18.255 acted correctly. Mea culpa, IP 94.8.18.255 please accept my excuses. – Ib Leo (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

❌ – not enough rationale provided. – Ib Leo (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Review site: Metal Storm
I'd like to propose Metal Storm as a professional review site. It's listed among the non-professional sites, but I cannot find any discussion in the archives which has led to this classification. Metal Storm has existed for ten years now and is run by a fixed staff of volunteers. It also features a lot of guest reviews, but those all contain a disclaimer. According to Alexa Metal Storm used to be the most visited webzine in the heavy metal category while it still was on the URL MetalStorm.ee, second only to the database Encyclopaedia Metallum. Recently the URL was changed to MetalStorm.net to emphasize its global character - through the change it has also dropped in Alexa rank as the former URLs (.ee and .eu) still redirect to MetalStorm.net. Nonetheless it is a highly notable webzine which has made its appearance in print magazines and many other online media: the German print magazine Legacy has featured an article by Metal Storm in its October 2009 issue  (the last sentence mentions Metal Storm and the involved staffers), the (now defunct) Estonian print fanzine Pläkk used to feature a page in English with Metal Storm’s reviews and the Belgian/Flemish newspaper "Gazet Van Antwerpen" has printed news about the victory of the Belgian band Oceans of Sadness in the Metal Storm Awards (here the news item on the newspaper’s online portal). The online news portal Blabbermouth regularly references Metal Storm’s news and interviews and the annual Metal Storm Awards have received several mentions on Brave Words. Metal Storm is also in official partnership with Hellfest, one of Europe's biggest heavy metal festivals. A quote from a Metal Storm review has also been printed on a sticker on the Peaceville re-release of Carpathian Forest's "Through Chasm, Caves and Titan Woods" in 2007. Unfortunately I don’t have the image link anymore.

The rating system of the site generally is the 10 star system, some reviewers however refuse to add ratings to their reviews, so for those cases tags in the "(favorable)" format should probably be used. As a staff member of the site in question I am probably accused of COI. I am however familiar with the policies and standards of Wikipedia. Therefore I’d also like to add a restriction: the standards of Metal Storm have changed over the years, there are a lot of sub-par reviews on the site, especially from the first half of the decade before our standards shifted. I guess a remark "Only add official reviews (i.e. without guest review disclaimer) from 2007 onwards" would be fine as that would also be the time when Peaceville quoted Metal Storm on their album sticker, thus being the first date I can think of when MS has fulfilled Wikipedia’s notability standards.

What do you think, notable enough? :-) Promonex (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Up front: I love Metal Storm. I am a member. I enjoy the reviews. Unfortunately, it's not about me (or you)! Here is a sample of previous discussions regarding why Metal-archives isn't on the list; I suspect the reason why MS will be objected to is along the same lines. All the best. – B.hotep •talk• 13:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being honest about your COI. Your webzine certainly does seem to satisfy our criteria "found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff", and you do provide some proof of general notability. For me this is sufficient. Would someone object to the addition of Metal Storm (with the annotation "Only add official reviews (i.e. without guest review disclaimer) from 2007 onwards") to our list of professional review sites? If not I will add it by the end of the week. – Ib Leo (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the subject of proof of notability: anyone can email Blabbermouth to submit news stories, thus boosting the profile of anyone's site; and, of course Peaceville are going to use a favourable review of one of their recording artists on the front of their records – from whatever source it originates. It will be time-consuming to filter the additions of reviews so that they adhere to the "official only review after 2007" criteria. On this basis, I object at this present moment. However, I do acknowledge that we have an article on Metal Storm, and that MS is one of the more professional-looking websites out there... I am open to more debate. :) – B.hotep •talk• 19:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we've never submitted any of our news or interviews to Blabbermouth. Not as far as I know at least. But to be honest, I don't believe that being mentioned by another site does say a lot about a given site's notability anyway. I just brought it up as it seemed to be sufficient in The Metal Temple's case above. I do believe however that appearing in a print magazine does qualify a webzine as highly notable (as was the case with Legacy Magazine) and as you refuted several points except for this one I guess you agree ;) Actually I don't think it's that time-consuming to filter new additions as they all appear (or are supposed to appear) at the end of Metal Storm's "What Links Here" page. Far more time-consuming will be the deletion of several existing links which shouldn't be there in first place (and some probably legit ones don't adhere to the correct rating format). I'd volunteer to weed them out myself and, if necessary due to my COI, give full account of deletions and new additions on my behalf. So would everyone be fine with an "official staff reviews starting from 2009" criterion instead? Promonex (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure about where to go with this. Input from editors with more interest in heavy metal than me would be highly appreciated! – Ib Leo (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does our infobox support singles and songs?
Does anyone know why Infobox album allows the Type parameter to be "single" and "song", when we got specific infoboxes for those (Infobox single – Infobox song)? Example of usage for single: Avengers (single). – Ib Leo (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * History? As I recall, c. 2004, these were the same template and were forked. Note that your example was included in Category:Album_articles_with_non-standard_infoboxes for precisely this parameter. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's where I found it. You have obviously been around much longer than me so you remember such things. Shouldn't we remover the support properly from the template, then, instead of just removing it from the template documentation as was supposedly done back in 2004? – Ib Leo (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You lost me The parameter  isn't supported. Try making a fake album article at User:IbLeo/Fake with   and you will see the same display and the addition of Category:Album_articles_with_non-standard_infoboxes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know where to find my sandbox, thank you very much ;-) What I mean is that if you put "Type = song" in the infobox of Josephine (song), then it becomes light blue which is the color associated to "song" according to the documentation, instead of abricot which is the color of a non-supported Type parameter. So obviously, at least the type "song" is supported by the infobox which is really not the intention as far as I understand. The documentation also claims that type "single" is supported but this doesn't seem to be the case. – Ib  Leo (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah That is funny. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting because I noticed that Avengers (single) was in the list Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes and attempted to fix the infobox. But after my efforts in the album-style infobox, the article was still in the list calling for attention. I now see that the solution was to change the infobox template altogether. So IbLeo's question is a good one. D OOMSDAYER 520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If I understand this discussion correctly, the consensus is that Infobox album should not support the Type parameter to be neither "single" nor "song" as we have specific infoboxes for those animals. I will consequently—if I hear no wild protests in this space—see if I can get it removed completely from both the infobox and its documentation. – Ib Leo (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, there are apparently two different ways to do the same thing, but only one is truly legit. The most visible result is that articles about songs (not albums) are ending up in the to-do lists at the Albums Project because of "non-standard" infoboxes. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 18:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now been looking at the code for Infobox album for two nights, and damn me if I can understand why it supports "Type=song" but not "Type=single", except that it has something do with a hardcoded exception on the color "khaki" that is used for singles. My conclusion is that the good people who code templates here on WP are true geeks that never bother one minute to put comments in the code :-). So I am not going to waste any more time on this, but if anyone else want to have a go, I wish you good luck! Hrmpf! – Ib Leo (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added some instructions to the infobox documentation to indicate that "song" and "single" shouldn't be used with this infobox even if they are shown as possible values, and "song" is supported by the template. – Ib Leo (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good move, and thanks. But I'll bet highlighting the situation only causes the question to come up again soon! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and I wish I could fix it but I don't have the necessary coding skills to do so. It has something to do with code sharing, which in itself is a sound principle. Some of the sub-templates used in the Misc-section—like Extra chronology—are shared with Infobox single andInfobox song so the colors for singles and songs have to be supported. If you have any idea about how to move along from here, it would be appreciated. – Ib Leo (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

album ratings — a new column
A while ago, I started a discussion over at Template_talk:Album_ratings about possibly creating a narrow column for citations, because the citation actually references both the rating and the review. So citations don't necessarily need to be tagged on the end of a rating. The points that I had brought up were: Note #3 is an apparent attempt by editors to increase ratings visibility. A third column that would host the citations would help to make the album ratings template easier to scan. Incidentally, I suggested the third column be an optional parameter. Thanks to for suggesting I come here for discussion. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  06:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) This would keep the ratings free from citation-clutter
 * 2) Non-starred ratings, like B+ and Christgau images, wouldn't require parentheses around them, which seem to exist only to "push" the citations away (for example: B+ as opposed to  (B+)[1]
 * 3) I've been seeing more and more articles (including the FA for Janet Jackson's Control) where a space is added between the rating and the citation. I currently do this with my own contributions


 * Not particularly keen--since entries in the Rating colum aren't all the same width, this would put the inline citations out on a limb, vertically aligned, instead of attached to content they relate to. To me, that seems a bit strange. But anyway, having just looked at a couple of example articles with your suggestion in mind, it strikes me the Source column is the one whose contents the citation should be attached to, not the Rating column. The citation relates to the source (and by implication, to ratings from that source, since that is what the table presents). That would remove the problem anyway, and give the ratings better visibility. Seems preferable to overcomplicating the table by increasing number of cols (and increasing width, a bit). PL290 (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not keen either, but I think it should remain attached to the rating as that is what is being confirmed by the reference. It's like if an article said something along the lines of:
 * Ira Robbins in Trouser Press, said "blah blah blah".
 * The reference for that would go after the quote (the equivalent of rating), not after Trouser Press (the equivalent of the source). --JD554 (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean up to a point, but isn't that mainly because in running prose, citations are typically positioned at the end of the sentence? So, you might equally get:
 * Ira Robbins said "blah blah blah" in Trouser Press.
 * PL290 (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Point well made on my bad example! However, WP:CITE says: "An inline citation should appear next to the material it supports." The information that needs supporting is the rating, not the fact there is a review. Otherwise we could have continued to use the old  method. If further information from that review is used in prose that would also have a citation next to it. It's not likely that Rolling Stone magazine's existence is going to be challanged, but the rating they gave an album is. --JD554 (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't fault your reasoning. So this has probably been a red herring and the point to note as far as this discussion's concerned is that neither of us is keen on the suggestion. PL290 (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. --JD554 (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You guys make an excellent point: inline citations should be attached to the rating. I was easily swayed, just curious. Thanks for the replies. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  20:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Are these album reviews reliable?
I apologize in advance for asking someone to do something which likens to doing my "homework", but I was having doubts about these review sites and was hoping for a second opinion as to their reliability. Quick background: I've found some English reviews for the Finnish album 12 Gauge (album) and I may need to rewrite the entire Reception section because of this (it currently uses German and Finnish reviews for the majority). I'm also very unsure what constitutes a blog since some of them look like "normal" websites (to me). But I would love to add some of these. So here goes: I really, really appreciate any help on this. If I should move this discussion to a help desk, do let me know. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Angry Metal Guy — is this a blog and unusable?
 * 2) Metal Invader — ok review to use?
 * 3) Keep It Metal — URL has the word "blog" in it, but is it a blog?
 * 4) MetalEater — just double checking this site is ok to use
 * 5) No Clean Singing — blog?


 * Whether the sites are technically "blogs" doesn't really matter—"blog" is just a publishing format like "website" or "newspaper". Our guideline for album reviews is based on the site policy, Verifiability, although it's a little different since we're looking for opinions, not facts. What matters is whether the site has a reputation for being a professional music source. We usually don't consider sites reliable unless you can find other reliable sources that say they are. This discussion is an example of how to show reliability. All those sites look pretty low-budget so I doubt any of them will be considered reliable. —Gendralman (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Look "low budget" and therefore unreliable? Angry Metal Guy gets consistently high ratings in Google searches, has gotten high profile interviews, and reviews CDs from every major heavy metal label that there is (receives promo, gets interview access, etc.). Would a snazzier design make the same reviews more reliable? That's totally illogical. Angry Metal Guy has also been referenced on SMN News, Metal From Finland and Blabbermouth 1 2. It has also been referenced as a reliable news source on a variety of Wikipedia articles (not for reviews but for news). Anyway, that's my argument. --130.243.188.177 (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I explained what reliability is. Again, all that matters is whether it gets attention from other reliable sources. If AMG meets the criteria then it's fine, regardless of what it looks like. I was just making the point that "low-budget" sites are less likely to get attention from other news sources, that's just the way it is. —Gendralman (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your responses. I ended up keeping Angry Metal Guy and MetalEater; the latter was written by a staff member, so I figured it was better than a user-submitted review. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  23:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Duet/collaborative albums
Should the artist names for such albums be seperated by "and" or "&", like on the Distant Relatives article? Dan56 (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "and". See WP:&. – Ib Leo (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, in the case of Wu-Massacre, how should the artist section of the infobox be written? Is it how the artists are credited (Meth, Ghost & Rae) or their actual (stage)names (Method Man, Ghostface Killah and Raekwon)? Dan56 (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember the golden rule: The infobox is there to summarize the article, so it shouldn't provide any content that is not mentioned in the article. I don't know if there are any guidelines out there that indicates how to handle artist pseudonyms, but I would suggest you make this point clear in the lead section. Then the infobox could stay as-is, except that it should say "studio album by Meth, Ghost and Rae" per above MOS. – Ib Leo (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

no_lengths option in Track listing
FYI, there is currently a discussion on the merits of an option that would allow disabling the length column in the track listing template. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:RIAA Diamond award albums
There is an open discussion here regarding the naming of Category:RIAA Diamond award albums, and one of the issues raised is whether "diamond" is a RIAA certification or award. Participation from this project's members in order to help reach a consensus would be most welcome. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Review site: Metal Temple
Hello. I propose to add Metal Temple as a professional review site. It is one of the oldest online magazines on the heavy metal scene with thousands of reviews and live reports and well respected in the metal community. It is a non-profit magazine, run by professional DJs and volunteers. Jimmys Cybertroll (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks OK to me. 10 years of publication both in print & online, with its own staff of critics. Should pass criteria for reliability. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not familiar with this site but at a first glance it looks OK to me. However, it would be great if you could prove it's notablity by providing a list of reliable sources that have referred to it, as it has been the case in the past when we have added other sites to the list. See e.g. this thread in the archive. Good luck :-) – Ib Leo (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone actually quotes online magazines (and in heavy metal music I doubt if anyone quotes anything but Metal Hammer unfortunately). Metal Temple has been referenced many times in Blabbermouth.net   and other online news sites for metal like Metal Underground  and SMN News .Jimmys Cybertroll (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You might have a point here. Indeed the heavy metal world seems to have its own universe apart from the "mainstream" press. Your justification is good enough for me. If in two days no-one has raised their voice against it, I think we can go ahead and add Metal Temple to the list. – Ib Leo (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree to add. J04n(talk page) 10:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅. – Ib Leo (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article about Metal Template was recently deleted. I would be tempted to think that this means that the website is actually not notable and should be removed from the list. However, I don't want to rush to any conclusions. Opinions? – Ib Leo (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, if a website is not notable enough to qualify for it's own article here on WP, then it should per definition not be included in our list of professional review sites. Therefore, if I hear no protests within the next few days, I will remove Metal Temple from the list. – Ib Leo (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * . Metal Temple removed. – Ib Leo (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Albums by artist categorization
Hi there everyone, I'm coming here to the project today for a few reasons. Although I know discussions concerning categories aren't exactly a popular thing among users, I've come here here to make a proposal regarding and a recording artist's or band's nationality. I decided to start a discussion here instead of taking it to WP:CFD (where it would go should a consensus form of my proposal) as it's quite complex, and I would rather this process be well thought out to give the community more than enough time to voice their opinion and concerns of my proposal.

As I was browsing, I noticed that these categories didn't appear to be subcategorized by nationality. I thought it was a bit odd, as was subcategorized by nationality. After a bit of searching, I found, though I found it problematic. Although it's categorized under and, the subcategories appear to be flawed—or, at least the naming convention is. For example, categories are titled, , etc.; by name, it appears the albums themselves are being categorized by nationality. I don't think this was the intent, but this is how it seems. Clearly, albums themselves can't be American or British, but the recording artist or band are.

Now, my proposal: I'm proposing that these categories be renamed. Instead of being named, I think these categories should be renamed using the   format. For example, the category would be renamed to  ("artists" being pluralized, as the subcategories in  are). Along with these renames, will by re-categorized as a subcategory of ; the current categories in Albums by artist will should then have to be categorized accordingly under the proper nationality subcategory. Additionally, should we come to agreement, and its subcategories would also be nominated for renaming to correspond with this proposal;  would be renamed to —basically adding "artist" before the word "nationality" throughout (unless someone can think of a better name for the parent )—while the subcategories of those subcategories would be renamed using the   format as opposed to its current format of. Basically, the artists are American, British, whatever, not the albums themselves.

So there you have it, my proposal. I wasn't kidding when I said complex. I hope to get some feedback. Questions, comments and concerns are welcomed, of course. — ξ xplicit  03:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two problems that I see.
 * albums can be nation-specific; consider, for example, Yesterday and Today, which was by a British band, no argument there, but was put together by an American record label for USA/Canada release, and was never officially released in the UK, so I don't think it's a British album.
 * whilst soloists are (usually) single-nationality (there are exceptions: how about John Barrowman?), many bands are multi-national. Fairport Convention, for example, started off as all-British, and are at the moment, but have included Australian, American and French members. So, is Nine (Fairport Convention album) British, when only 60% of the band on that album claimed that nationality?
 * -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I understand how albums can be nation specific, I still don't think calling an album American or Canadian makes sense. Categorizing under  should resolve this specific case. As for cases like Barrowman, I'd assume it would only make sense to categorize (assuming it existed, which it doesn't at this point in time) under  and, as his article is categorized similarly.

Cases like Fairport Convention are definitely a more complex situations, as neither category scheme really covers its multi-nationality. As it stands, is only categorized under British and English categories; these types of cases would probably need more in-depth discussion. Although my proposal isn't perfect, I do feel it has a lot less holes in it than the current naming convention does. — ξ xplicit  20:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about simply abolishing the Albums by artist category. The Films categories are a poor example, because instead of, it should be called Category:Films by directors' nationality.

Right now, we have (reading from article upwards) I like this system a lot, though the Category:Albums by artist may be overbroad. What I don't like is the horrible crossing of genre and nationality categories. Maybe that's what you're having a problem with? Bottom line is that we have the nationality cat, and the "albums by artist" cat is possibly superfluous. As for other points, I agree that while Category:Albums by artist nationality is named properly, Category:American albums is a problem, because the artists' nationalities are what we are after here, and as Redrose suggests, the nationality of an album itself is a valid descriptor. As far as bands having members from different countries, there are two ways to handle it. You can look at where the band is based, or you can categorize it under both countries. -Freekee (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Album article is in...
 * "Artist" category, which captures a particular artist's albums, and puts them in...
 * Albums by artist
 * "Nationality" cat(s)
 * "Genre" cat (where possible)


 * I'm not suggesting abolishing, but to refine the categories by nationality. It is overly broad, as you've suggested. Essentially, would become a subcategory of , and we would then subcategorize using the   naming scheme. The current subcategories of  would need to be renamed to reflect that we're categorizing the nationality of the artists. I really don't have an opinion for the categories that cross genre with nationality, I just brought those up because they would also need to be renamed as well for uniformity, assuming the nationality categories are created as proposed, or some form that would need these categories to be renamed.


 * Although I do agree that some albums can be released only to in certain one or few nations, I don't feel that categorization would be the best option. If such categories surfaced, it might trickle over to overcategorization and category clutter, especially if an album is released across several nations, but not all of them. — ξ xplicit  19:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From your previous statement, I cannot tell anymore if you want to refine the categories by nationality of the artist who released the album or by country in which the album was released. I find both problematic, anyway. Where would an album go that was e.g. released on a German label by a US-american artist (The Köln Concert) or by South African musicians then living in Great Britain and so on? Nevermind, BNutzer (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think is something like an adminstrative container for its subcategories, and I don't think it is helpful if you need to know the nationality of an artist (which is sometimes difficult to define) if you want to find their albums' category in such a container. Besides, I think that some  categories, e.g. US-American or British would still be too big to be of much more use than the current one. BNutzer (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Refining the categories by nationality of the artist who released the album. Apologies if my wording was unclear. I think you misread have my proposal (or I have terrible wording). My proposal is trying to address the broadness of . For example, is currently categorized in under, which I find too broad. What I'm proposing is that  become a subcategory of . Its subcategories (which currently use the "Fooian albums") should be renamed using the "Albums by Fooian artists", because the categories are defining the nationality of the artist, not the album. Should a rename take place,  would then be categorized under.


 * In my previous post, I was addressing the concern that some albums are released in one or few nations, but I feel that categorizing albums by region-exclusive releases would be overcategorization and add category clutter. Hopefully this clears things up a bit.


 * I disagree that subcategorizing by nationality wouldn't be helpful. I feel that if the category was refined as such, it would make browsing through it much easier for navigational purposes—which categories are supposed to accomplish. Yes, categories like  and  would still be quite large (but then again, some categories will just always be large), but as far as my proposal goes, I think breaking it down nationality-wise would be much more efficient. —  ξ xplicit  20:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Explicit, I must say that I have sympathy your proposal. Currently it is unclear for the casual reader whether contains albums by English artists or albums released in England by any artist. – Ib Leo (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that Albums by artist's nationality should be a subcategory of Albums by artist. I think it should remain a subcategory of Albums. It doesn't make sense, from a naming standpoint, to have subcats like "albums by Greek artists" in a category named "Albums by artist". -Freekee (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not? We have, which breaks its subcategories down by nationality, like . Granted, there's no , but exlcuding that, the scheme is the same. — ξ xplicit  02:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Simple. I think that is named wrong. They could correct the category name to  (or would that be ?). Compare that to our situation. We already have a category for "Albums by artist's nationality" (though it's not named properly either). Why should we then make that one a subcat of "Albums by artist"? I think it fits quite well in . Also, I agree with BNutzer that  is something like an administrative container for its subcategories. I've used it quite a bit for keeping an eye on band categories. -Freekee (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If were renamed, where would that leave its subcategories not related to nationality? I personally don't understand your argument of categorizing artists' categories under  as well as  (assuming you support the renaming aspect; I don't think you've expressed your opinion on that matter). That's like categorizing an American singer under  and, when the latter is a subcategory of the former; obviously, if a page is categorized under a subcategory, the parent should be removed. It wouldn't make sense to categorize American singers under  simply for, as BNutzer put it, thinking that it wouldn't be helpful if "you need to know the nationality of an artist (which is sometimes difficult to define)". We have  to do just this, and I I feel the album categories would be better organized and easier to navigate through if they followed the format that I proposed. —  ξ xplicit  22:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the impression that there are two requirements here: 1) (of mine, too) Have "SomeArtist albums" in . 2) (of you, Explicit, too) Find "Fooian Albums" easily. That can be done in already, if I am not mistaken. Why mix the two requirements and sacrifice the benefits of 1)? If you find  wrong for your requirement, use, and let me do it vice versa. BNutzer (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First, yes, I wholeheartedly support proposals to name categories correctly and specifically. The category American albums should be renamed to Albums by American artists.
 * Second, this goes back to my first comment, way above. Here are three statements, followed by the only logical conclusion: *Since* already exists, *and* it does not belong in, since it's not really by artist but by country *and* you feel that categorizing it doubly is superfluous (per your example about the singers) *then* the answer is to delete . But since  does have its uses, as BNutzer mentioned, it's not really superfluous, and I see no reason to delete it.
 * If we really want to make searching easier, let's try to clean up the genre/nationality crossover categories. -Freekee (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see both of your points. I guess we can drop the whole becoming a subcategory of . As for the renaming, if significant problems don't show up, I'll nominate the subcategories of  for renaming (changing the naming convention from Fooian albums to Albums by Fooian artists) and leave a notice here. The issues regarding  can be discussed in the subsection below. The nominations of the first batch may be held off to coincide with the ones below. —  ξ xplicit  05:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome. As for further discussion, I'll join in when I have some free time. -Freekee (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Albums by genre and nationality
Now, this section is solely for discussing and its subcategories. This way, we don't get discussions all jumbled up. I really don't have an opinion of these categories as I haven't really looked into them. The following is a proposal that popped out from the top of my head, so it shouldn't be seen as binding or that I'm against their deletion, especially if a better alternative is suggested, or deletion of these categories is agreed upon. What we can do with these categories is set up the naming convention similar to the ones above. For example, could be renamed to  (on a side note, this suggestion alone makes me not like this category, but I'm not going to suggestion deletion for not liking it). The subcategories of I haven't figured out yet. The only thing I can come up with is the horrid Albums by Fooian artist by genre. Again, others can argue deletion if they think it's best. Anywho, moving on from that... The subcategories of the prototype Albums by Fooian artist by genre (for lack of a better name) would naturally be renamed using the [Genre] albums by Fooian artists naming scheme. These [Genre] albums by Fooian artists would naturally be subcategories of their respective Albums by Fooian artists. For example, would be a subcategory of  and. Oh wow, this is more complicated and ugly than I thought. Help? — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so, it seems was previously nominated for deletion over at WP:CFD; in fact, the discussion was just last month, which resulted in keep. There was a suggested rename to, so this may be a more suitable alternative, though I'd probably swap the characteristics and be in favor of , due to the fact that the naming scheme would take the Goo albums by Fooian artists format. So, modifying my proposal of my post just above this one, the subcategories should then be renamed using the Goo albums by artist nationality, instead of my horrid suggestion of Albums by Fooian artist by genre. Modifying my example above now,  would then be a subcategory of  and  (which already exists in this case, making things a bit easier). Thoughts? —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  20:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note, I created a subpage in my userspace of a hypothetical nomination of these categories that reflect this discussion, which can be found here. This discussion has died out, but I would really appreciate feedback. I should point out that some of the content under the "Fooian albums by genre" collapsed table is incomplete and suggestions are wanted for a few of these categories. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  00:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I really don't like these categories and all their subcategories, as genre is such a POV-loaded subject. However, getting rid of them all is probably not an option. So I think that what you propose above is the next-best solution: Renaming to, Fooian albums by genre to Albums by Fooian artists by genre, and Goo albums by nationality to Goo albums by artist nationality. And so on. So  would become  and  would become . It's quite a huge renaming task, but it makes perfect sense. – Ib  Leo (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I support any proposal to rename categories from "nationality albums" to "albums by nationality bands". Explicit, your proposal sounds great. Let us know if you have any other issues regarding it. Otherwise, there hasn't been any dissent in a couple of weeks, so I suggest taking your argument to CfD. If approved, let's find a bot operator, or whatever it takes to make these changes. -Freekee (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I plan to take it to CFD later on this week. Should the nomination succeed, the closing admin would simply list all categories in WP:CFDW; either or  will take care of creating the new categories and moving content from the old to the new, leaving minimal, if any, work on our part. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  03:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I hope it's not premature to say, "good work!" -Freekee (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Those interested in taking part of the discussion regarding the categories above, please feel free to comment here: Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 15. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  01:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * CFD initiated
 * ✅. For the record, the CFD passed and has been implemented by now. I have awarded our project barnstar to Explicit for his initiative and good work. – Ib Leo (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been seeing Justin / Koavf doing a lot of category changes on album articles over the last week, which I believe is connected to this, so thanks to him as well for all the work he has put in. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Muze info (again)
Product/CD info by Muze has been removed from Tower.com product pages, which are used as sources for review snippets. (ex. Only Built 4 Cuban Linx...) Anyone feel like helping replace the Tower.com links with product pages from other sites, such as Cdwow, silverplatters or 7digital? Dan56 (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Released
Under the Released section in the info box is it okay to put a season(Fall, Summer, Spring, Winter) or quarters(Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4)? STAT -Verse 04:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seasons should be avoided, see WP:SEASON. --JD554 (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Proper use of the infobox
I remember seeing statements like "the infobox is there to summarize the article", which would imply that all information listed in the infobox should also be found in the article itself. Does anyone know if this is clearly stated somewhere in a policy or guideline somewhere? I looked at WP:IBX but it doesn't really cover this. I keep seeing editors adding information to infoboxes without supporting it by prose in the article, even sometimes with references, like here. – Ib Leo (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny you should bring this up because I was just looking for a policy/guideline as to what should and should not be in an infobox and found WP:IBX underwhelming. Perhaps this string should be moved there to discuss adding guidelines as to what should be included? J04n(talk page) 18:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's definitely an option. But let's wait and see what people here has to say. Maybe someone can point us to the right policy or guideline, or maybe you are in fact allowed to use the infobox for data not mentioned in the prose. – Ib Leo (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Try Help:Infobox -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It gives little more than a hint of what I am after. True enough, in the middle of the paragraph it says "[...] they are only supposed to summarize material from an article—the information should still be present in the main text [...]". With the wording "supposed to" it's not really a strong statement, is it? I don't think such a vague formulation on a Help page provides enough leverage to revert edits that adds data to infoboxes without supporting it in the prose. But thanks for pointing it out. – Ib Leo (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing that will definitely be only in the infobox is the album cover image: I see no reason for repeating that within the article. Apart from that, I edit a lot of British railway station articles, and some of our infoboxes have provision for geographic location data (both latitude/longitude, and a OS grid reference), which would not ordinarily be mentioned in the article text. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say definitely. A description of the album cover (particularly if sourced) is a great addition to an album page. You could say that the photo is a summary of the description. J04n(talk page) 21:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. But contrary to alternate covers there is no strict requirement to mention the primary album cover in the prose as it's used for identification. Other items that are not needed in the prose are the "previous" and "next" album links as they are for navigational purposes only. So maybe it's not as simple as I first thought... – Ib Leo (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Songs by country categorization
Hello, this WikiProject recently took part in the CFD nomination that changed the naming convention of Fooian albums to Albums by Fooian artists. I recently made a similar proposal regarding over at WT:SONGS, but because that WikiProject is less active and the proposal is far more complex, I would like to invite members of this WikiProject to the discussion, which can be found here. I would appreciate comments because the options of my proposal are simply not easy to carry out. Thank you. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  06:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ACCESSIBILITY
A user over at The Dark Side of the Moon has been modifying the layout of the article's tracklist, quoting the above guideline. I've reverted them as I think it looks messy, and even squashing my browser down to a tiny 400px wide the table is still perfectly legible. What is this project's view on this matter? Parrot of Doom 13:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The wider one is better. Any browser worth its salt - and Internet Explorer - will autoformat a table according to how much space is available to display it in. Forced line breaks are thus unnecessary, and "W&W" is a fudge. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's related to this rather long discussion: Template_talk:Track_listing. Looks like the editor in question is deploying a forked version Tracklist custom of Track listing. It's currently used on two other albums, Conspiracy of One and Godsmack (album). I believe this is done against consensus, see Template_talk:Track_listing. – Ib  Leo (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The readability problems only occur for readers with screen windows set to 800x600 resolution, or using larger text-size in their browsers. See subtopic below: "". -Wikid77 (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Run-together track-table in WP:FA
The featured article "The Dark Side of the Moon" (album) has been displaying a run-together table for screens at 800x600 resolution. Per policy WP:Accessibility, the display at 800x600 must be reasonable (not with words in different columns run-together), which has been policy since before May 2009. See sample display below: Current table appearance at 800x600 resolution:


 * NOTE: Observe (above) how the heading words are run-together as " Lead vocalsLength " and the tracks have compressed phrases " containing Mason" or "Gilmour,Gilmour".

Customized table at 800x600 resolution:


 * NOTE: The heading words are spaced now as " Lead vocals    Length " (no longer run-together). Per WP:Accessibility, the table does not need to have the same balanced appearance when narrower than 800x600 pixels.

Even though consideration of sight-impaired users requires extra planning, and support of 800x600 format requires extra testing, the extra efforts are justified when typesetting one of the WP:Featured articles, such as "The Dark Side of the Moon". Meanwhile, there is also an ongoing discussion to provide similar wide track-tables for the general album articles as well, but that discussion has been more complex, due to gaining consensus for changing the display of over 11,000 articles using Template:Track listing. That task demands more time, due to the complexity of verifying track-table layouts in those 11,000+ articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what browser you're using: but I have Firefox 3.6.2, Google Chrome and Internet Explorer 7, and in none of those do words get run together as you claim. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the first table, not the 2nd. -Wikid77 11:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the first table; and the words are not run together, either before or after your fiddles just now. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As above. Also, WP:ACCESS is not a policy, it is a guideline. – B.hotep •talk• 19:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As others have mentioned, WP:ACCESSIBILITY is a guideline, not a policy. I'm clueless as to what the problem is here.  On any normal resolution (I bet less than 1% of users are viewing at 800x600 or less) the table looks fine, however the above changes make it look awful. Parrot of Doom 22:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The difference is merely the spacing & wrapping (see: Typesetting): the customized table has 5 spaces between columns, but the default format has no spaces between columns & wraps the rows to 3 or 4 lines. Read WP:ACCESS. It's not just a problem for 800x600 screens, but for readers using larger text-size. Also, many sophisticated users are displaying windows at half-screen size (Windows 7 even has a feature to align 2 windows, side-by-side, as each half-screen size). The track-tables need to appear balanced for sophisticated users who know how to adjust the browser window settings. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As there is obviously no consensus to deploy this forked template at this point in time, I have removed it from the two articles where it was already used (see my entry further up). I suggest that we close the discussion here and continue over at Template talk:Track listing. As I already stated at several occasions over there, I would support an evolution of the template that improves the auto-widening for smaller displays, but only if it does not decrease the display quality for "non-sophisticated" users like myself who look at Wikipedia in full screen mode with a fairly standard setup. – Ib Leo (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What should we do with the forked template?
The forked template Tracklist custom is now used on another article: Riot Act (album). I would propose to nominate it for speedy deletion and instead implement enhancements to our "official" template "Track listing when there is consensus to do so. Any objections to this approach? – Ib Leo (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. In the meantime, if Tracklist is not adequate for a certain article, there are other options such as creating a table, which allows information to be presented in rows and columns with much greater flexibility.  The reason for objecting to a forked template is not to prevent non-standard formats; we recognize that customized formatting is a good choice in some articles.  Maintenance of multiple templates is the problem. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have nominated Tracklist custom for speedy deletion under CSD T3 and notified it's creator. – Ib Leo (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The speedy deletion has been contested by the template creator and consequently turned into a WP:TfD. You are invited to comment over at the templates entry. – Ib Leo (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record: The TfD on Template:Tracklist custom has finished: "The result of the discussion was Moved to Template:Track listing/sandbox6, without redirect. The editor who created it aside, there is consensus that this template is an undesirable fork of Track listing. However, there is also a consensus that features found in the fork may be useful. To ensure that this material is available for further use, I've moved the template to a sandbox page." In conclusion, all interested editors are invited to contribute to the constructive evolution of Track listing by consulting its talk page. A number of initiatives are ongoing. – Ib Leo (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Birth Name & Registered Name vs Stage Name
There is an important discussion about the subject being opened here. Your opinion is welcome at the following discussion. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about album chronology
I've recently created an article for Bo Hansson's 1972 album Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings, which I'll be expanding over the next few days. I have a problem with the album chronology section of the infobox though and I'd like some advice and opinions on how best to deal with it. My problem is that although the album was released as Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings in 1972, it had previously been issued in 1970 in Sweden under the alternate title of Sagan Om Ringen. Likewise, Bo's follow-up album Magician's Hat was released internationally in 1974 but it had previously been released as Ur Trollkarlens Hatt in 1972. So, my question is what year should I put in brackets after each album in the chronology field of the infobox?

Currently I've used two years separated by a slash, like (1970/1972), but this isn't wholly satisfactory to my mind. Just to be clear, Sagan Om Ringen is exactly the same album as Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings, only the title is different (the same goes for Bo's follow-up album too). However, the title of the article is Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings, since that is the title which the album is best known by internationally and is therefore both easy to find and recognizable (as per Article titles). However, I can't get away from the fact that the album was actually first released in 1970—only the title was different. But somehow it feels misleading and erroneous to use 1970 as the year of release because an album called Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings wasn't released until 1972. This dilemma is the same for the Magician's Hat album too.

So, what's the standard Wikipedia approach for albums that have been released in non-English speaking countries prior to their international release? The brief instructions at the "Infobox album" template page give no advice on this, so I'm asking here. Thanks in advance for you help in this matter. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does Emmerdale (album) provide any inspiration? This is the debut album by The Cardigans yet we didn't get it in the UK until after the release of their 4th album, Gran Turismo (album). -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Cardigans' album Emmerdale is a good comparison (and well done for coming up with one because I couldn’t) but the key difference here is that the album had the same title for both its Swedish and UK releases. So you can cite its release year as 1994 because an album by The Cardigans called Emmerdale was indeed released during that year, just not in an English speaking country. With Bo Hansson's album, its title was different for its original Swedish release, which is what creates the dilemma. The album originally appeared in 1970 but an album bearing the title Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings wasn't released until 1972. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would think the chronology should say (1970) for the first album as you have written in the infobox it was released first in 1970. The 1972 release is almost a re-issue. Same for the follow-up.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tuzapicabit. Although it was released under two different titles in two different years for different markets, it's still the same album. And WP:ALBUM clearly states that the infobox should contain the earliest release date. Furthermore the title of the article should be Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings as this is the name it is known under in English. This is already the case so it's not an issue. – Ib Leo (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input guys! OK, it looks like we're leaning toward a 1970 release year in the album chronology section, because as you both rightly point out, that's when the album first appeared. But doesn't it feel a little bit misleading to cite this year when there wasn't actually an album titled Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings available in 1970? I'm genuinely torn about this because I can see both sides of the discussion but I am starting to lean more towards citing 1970 because, as IbLeo points out, WP:ALBUM states that the infobox should contain the earliest release date. By the way, I'm not suggesting that the article should be renamed—its English title is certainly what it's best known as globally. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, after weighing up the comments by users IbLeo and Tuzapicabit, I've decided to go with specifying the earliest year of release in the album chronology section of the infobox. However, I have retained the mention of a December 1970 release in Sweden and a September 1972 release for the rest of the world in the "Released" field because the album wasn't actually released under its best known title (and the title of the article itself) until 1972. Many thanks for everybody’s input. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"All songs were written by..."
Today, WP:ALBUM recommends the following standard phrase for overall song writing credits: "All songs were written by Gordon Gano." To my ears it sounds like Gordon Gano, the poor sod, is not the songwriter anymore. Wouldn't it be more exact to replace "were" by "are" in that phrase? Or is it just a stupid thought by a poor non-native English speaker? – Ib Leo (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He wrote them in the past - not the present, so "were" is correct. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not just have it say "All songs written by Joe Schmoe"? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redrose64, our guidelines also applies to albums that were released last week, and even future albums. Would you still use "were" in those situations? Y2kcrazyjoker4, your proposal could be a way to go. Thanks to both of you – and let's hopefully hear some more opinions. – Ib Leo (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Small point, but even if it's a future album it would still be were, as the songs are already written, although I think "all song written by" is better anyway (or "all tracks written by")--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree: "all songs/tracks/instrumentals written by..." is fine in listings and infoboxes etc. In running prose, however, we still need to use the "were/was" construction: "All the songs on the album were written by Gordon Gano and Joe Schmoe." is a complete sentence but "All the songs on the album written by Gordon Gano and Joe Schmoe..." needs more words and suggests that we are going to say something about specific songs written by that pair (which may or may not include all the songs on the album).  BTW, songs were written (past tense) by a songwriter at some point but that does not mean that the songwriter stops being (present tense) the creator of them at any point!  Pink Floyd wrote lots of songs, for example but are still the guys that wrote them (even if one of them is dead)  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

❌. Okay, I stand corrected in the fine art of the English language. I conclude that we stick with the current wording in WP:ALBUM. Thanks everyone for your input. – Ib Leo (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

incorporating info on other editions
Is there a rule concerning other editions of an album? For example, how should the charting of the remixed edition of Rated R (Rihanna album) be incorporated into the article? Should it follow the same as chart tables for the main album? Dan56 (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

re Category:Albums free for download by copyright owner
Category:Albums free for download by copyright owner lacks a parent category, where does it belong? - Skullers (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Better yet, why is it so horribly named? — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What is this project's policy on dead links?
I'm really hoping to take Stone Temple Pilots (album) to GA, but I lost a reference (tagged dl) and I would hate to lose the details from this reference. Actually, doing so would almost render the "Song history" section as pathetic and I would probably just remove it entirely. I've looked for backup sources, I've contacted the authors/editors of the website, and it's basically a hopeless case. But WP:Linkrot says to not remove the link or the information. But I want a GA. What would some opinions from this project be? –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ <sub style="color:#5E1FFF;">galaxies  05:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add your opinions to my discussion on the GAN talk page here: Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations. Thank you. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ <sub style="color:#5E1FFF;">galaxies  05:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Genres delimited by a comma
I've recently been working a lot on the Avril Lavigne article and the related albums and singles. We had some trouble with genre-wars so we decided to only list genres with references (which worked perfectly). The citations for the genres looked really cluttered and disorganised with commas so we seperated them all with breaks.

Personally, I think it looks much neater with breaks than with commas and many other contributors on the Avril Lavigne articles agree. I was just wondering if there was any room for negotiation on the genres being delimited by commas. Can they not be seperated with breaks instead? Take a look at the Avril Lavigne articles and I'm sure you'll agree that the genres look very tidy and presentable, each with clear citations which we have found ends genre-warring.

I'm still a fairly new editor but I'm learning a lot everyday so I'm so if this is in the wrong section. Thank you.Zylo1994 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ideally the infobox shouldn't contain references as it should only be summarising information already in the article - which of course should be well cited. That way it wouldn't be necessary to use line breaks. Personally, I prefer commas as it helps to keep the infobox shorter. --JD554 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * These particular articles are quite sensitive when it comes to genres and a lot of pointless, unnecessary edits occur. Since adding citation, the genre changes have stopped. I'm not too sure where the genre citations would go in the article, except for the infobox. Zylo1994 (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have a look at some FA-class music biography articles you'll see that the majority of them deal with it in one of two ways: You could either have a section which discusses the artist's musical style like in the Joy Division or Aaliyah articles, or you could have the style discussed within the main biography timeline (with citations) such as the Kylie Minogue article. --JD554 (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case of albums and singles, put the genre/style in the "Reception" section. Something like
 * The style was described as "jazz-funk" "soul-jazz" "funk-soul" and "neo-Beethoven"
 * -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks I'll definately try that. Would having it in the reception section hurt a GA status? Its just that Let Go is considered GA and I would hate to ruin that with the genres in the reception section. Zylo1994 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If your amendment does not contradict the Good article criteria it's probably not going to cause a downgrading. If it does lose GA status, that won't happen automatically: the article would have to go through WP:GAR first. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of wondering about the amount of genres to be listed in an infobox. Let Go has four, but if these are mentioned in the Reception section, then shouldn't the infobox be a "summary" of those genres as well? In other words, all those sub-genres are blanketed by one or two main genres. Teen pop and pop rock are probably the same as "pop" and ... well, whatever "post-grunge" is, I'm sure that's covered by "rock". I'm not making a suggestion so much as I'm wondering if this should be the norm for most music articles? –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ <sub style="color:#5E1FFF;">galaxies  22:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Content of paragraphs about songs in album article
Hi, me and User:Agadant are working to get the article Tupelo Honey to GA status. WP Albums suggests that for a singer songwriter's album you can "Include a paragraph on each song, describing its critical reception and relevance to the article as a whole." However in the process of getting His Band and the Street Choir to GA the reviewer thought critical reception of songs should be in a "critical response" section. Is this the case or can reviews be included in a good article on wikipedia, like in the format of Tupelo Honey? Thanks  Kitchen Roll   (Exchange words)  10:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just my two cents on the matter, but I think you have to take it on a case by case basis. I believe it all depends on just how well known the individual songs on an album are and just how great the critical response of the individual songs is. For example, for 95% of albums, I generally lean towards having a dedicated "Critical response" section or else putting the info in a more general "Release and reception" section. However, in exceptional circumstances, and for very well-known albums, I think it's OK to have critical reception mentioned within a paragraph dedicated to the song. In your specific case, for Tupelo Honey I would keep critical response to its own dedicated section or include it in a general "Reception" section. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments Kohoutek. The problem is I think this would end up as a critical response section with a paragraph for the critical response of each song, which would read like a massive compilation of reviews. When this problem arose on His Band and the Street Choir I converted what the reviewers stated as facts into prose (without quotation marks and in my own words) and removed the reviewer's opinions about the songs from the article altogether (except some notable comments) because there were too many quotes, which is hard for the reader to follow. I think that the case on Tupelo Honey is similar, because there are also a lot of reviewer's quotes. Also I feel an album article becomes biased when individual reviews about songs are used, because the ballance of good and bad points the reviewers have is disproportionate and moving all the quotes together would highlight this.
 * The other option, that in my opinion wouldn't hamper the readability of the article, would be to keep it as it is now, but I'm not sure this would be accepted in a GA review.  Kitchen Roll   (Exchange words)  16:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you have to exercise some judgment when selecting how many reviews and exactly which reviews to use. Myself, in the "Reception" section, I like to use a handful of the most high profile reviews and quote excerpts from them verbatim. In other instances, particularly in other sections of the article, I convert things stated in reviews to prose, rather than quote them directly. But you have to be careful and use your judgment, because you don't want to write something in prose form that is non-NPOV and just the opinion of some author or reviewer. So try to stick to factual stuff only when rewording.


 * If it were me and I was going for a GA with Tupelo Honey, I would try to keep the "Composition", "Recording", and "Packaging" sections mostly prose-based. As a general reader, if I'm browsing the "Composition" section, I'm not going to be terribly interested in what some bloke from a magazine thinks of the songs on the album; I want to know how the songs were composed and the circumstances surrounding their composition. That's why I'm reading the "Composition" section, after all. If it were me, I'd keep direct quotes from reviews to the "Reception" or "Critical response" section. Of course, that shouldn't be a hard and fast rule—so feel free to include quotes if the prose demands it—but by and large, I would keep actual quotes from reviews out of the more factual sections like "Composition".


 * As an example of what I'm saying, let's look at paragraph two of the "Composition" section. If it were me, I'd reword it something like this...


 * The album opens with "Wild Night", a hybrid of R&B, soul and country music influences, which utilizes a moderate 4/4 time signature and features the lead guitar playing of Ronnie Montrose. The song, which has been described by biographer Ken Brooks as "a great start to the album", was first recorded after the Astral Weeks sessions in Autumn 1968 and was re-recorded numerous times before its eventual release on Tupelo Honey. Morrison recalled during an interview with Joe Bloggs in 1977 that the song was originally "a much slower number, but when we got to fooling around with it in the studio, we ended up doing it in a faster tempo." Following its appearance on the album, "Wild Night" was released as a single and proved popular enough to reach #28 on the U.S. singles chart.


 * Now, I’m not saying that this rewording of mine necessarily makes the paragraph any better than it is currently, but I have managed to do away with most of the quotes, which serves to make the whole thing sound more factual and encyclopedic. All of the inline refs that are currently located in this paragraph can still be used to support the info in this reworded version; in particular, David Cavanagh's Uncut review can still be used to support the factual info about the song's hybrid of influences and Ronnie Montrose's contributions. I've also added context and the year to Van the Man's quote, which is something that I personally like to see, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the flow of the prose. Anyway, that's just my two cents, so take it for what its worth. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think these sort of additions would be really good for the article - the text flows well and its encyclopedic. I've asked Agadant's opinion on the matter. Thanks very much  Kitchen Roll   (Exchange words)  21:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The 1977 Joe Bloggs quote is only lsted as a quote from an interview in my copy of Can You Feel the Silence?. Is there another source that gives the interviewer and the year? Thanks  Kitchen Roll   (Exchange words)  13:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL...oh no, I was just using "Joe Bloggs" as a made up name...a placeholder (see the Joe Bloggs article), which you would correct at a later date...likewise with the year. I haven't got a clue when this quote was uttered by Van Morrison. If you can't identify the source or the year, I would just leave it as "Morrison recalled during an interview that the song was originally...". That's all you can do. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha. I don't think the info's available. Thanks anyway  Kitchen Roll   (Exchange words)  13:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reception
On the Allmusic website, a number of albums are given a score (out of 5), but have no actual review of an album itself. Should these be included in the reception section (in particular, the album ratings template)? --SteelersFanUK06  HereWeGo2010!   12:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't see the point. Unless there is an actual review it isn't clear why the reviewer scorer gave a particular score. So I wouldn't include scores without reviews in either the reception section or the ratings template. --JD554 (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thanks for replying. --SteelersFanUK06  HereWeGo2010!   22:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevant CfD and a possible change to the scheme for categorizing album covers
Please see here I would like to change Category:Album covers to Category:Album and single covers and create a scheme for categorizing single covers apart from album covers. Any thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Studio or EP or both?
So, if an album is comprised of all studio tracks, but it is considered an EP, is it not also a studio album? What if the band includes the EP in their count of studio albums...should we treat it as both an EP and a Studio album or just one or the other? My specific issue is with regards to Rush's upcoming album, Clockwork Angels. The band describes the album as their 20th studio album, but that must include an EP named Feedback. Should we consider Feedback both an EP and a studio album, or do we ignore the band and just call Clockwork Angels the 19th studio album without a citation?LedRush (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A release can't really be both an EP and an album - EP means 'extended play', so it's an extended single format - essentially if it's marketed as an album it's an album, if it's marketed as an EP, it's an EP. If Feedback was marketed as an EP (I could see it being classed either way, although it clearly isn't really an EP in any meaningful sense of the term) then surely it's not counted as a full studio album? The only definitive criterion for deciding whether a release is an EP or album is how it's described/marketed - length, number of tracks, physical format, etc. overlap considerably.--Michig (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your confusion–it's a real mess! The lead section of the current revision of Feedback states that "Feedback is a studio EP...", while the infobox says it's an album. Furthermore, in the current revision of the Rush discography, Feedback is listed under studio albums, bringing the count to 19, while at the same time the infobox says 18 studio albums and 1 EP (which is nowhere to be found in the article). Completely incoherent! So what is it—an EP or an album? According to Extended play, "When the Compact Disc became the dominant physical format, capacities increased, with a CD single usually having around 10–28 minutes of music, a CD EP up to 36 minutes, and an album generally 30–80 minutes." As Feedback clocks in at 27:08 I would say that for Wikipedia it is an EP and that the album article and Rush discography should be updated to reflect this. This is consistent with Allmusic] who also considers it an EP. Conclusion: Don't always listen to the band, they don't necessarily know what they are talking about (see WP:SPS)! – Ib Leo (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How can we cite, for example, that Clockwork Angels is the band's 19th studio album, when all sources say it's the 20th? Do we just not mention it at all?  Do we call it the band's 19th full length studio album (is that original research?)?LedRush (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In short, yes, we say what it should be, if we need to say it at all. Do articles about albums really need to keep a count of "their nth album" when the count reaches such high numbers?  Do other sources, aside from Rush's website, really bother to say it (since you are concerned about what "all sources say")?  You could explain it in the article if you're worried another editor will try to fiddle with it, but I'd advise (1) waiting and see if that happens, and if it does, (2) address it with a hidden comment explaining the situation, because I can't see how a visible prose explanation would improve the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * On a related topic, the Rush navbox lists "Caravan" and "BU2B" as singles, but this article says "BU2B" is the b-side. This article seems to support that, though the digital definition of "b-side" is less clear. -Freekee (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well that's an easy dilemma to avoid resolving! Navboxes should not contain redlinks.  They are called navboxes because they help navigation to articles.  They should not be used for the purpose of making lists; those belong in the Rush article.  So those 2 redlinked singles can be removed. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * One little question I have here. Are EPs considered to be more albums or singles? I was always under the impression that an EP should follow the singles chronology - indeed, in the UK standard EPs (four tracks) are included on the singles chart (eg On Stage (EP)). There are some exception such as Night Train (EP) which is called an EP but has 8 songs (to my mind it's an album, and it's included on the album charts). Do we judge it on running length?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For our purposes, EPs are more like albums. -Freekee (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

credible source?
Is this a credible source for worldwide sales of Rated R (Rihanna album)? Another editor expressed that the use of the term "records" in the source can refer to albums & its singles. Dan56 (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that there can be any doubt that the statement "Rihanna's album has sold nearly 3 million records worldwide" in the source refers to the Rated R album alone, and not its attendant singles. However, as for whether it’s a credible source for this information or not, I'm always a little dubious of sales figures issued by an artist's own record company. Call me a cynic, but there’s far too much incentive for these labels to exaggerate their own figures. It would be better to find a more neutral source for this info. Having said that, SRP Records probably do meet the guidelines set out at WP:V, but I wouldn't trust 'em! ;-) --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A record label shouldn't be a source for its own sales figures. WP:SELFPUB applies here. —Gendralman (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Split-apart of MUSTARD
Following my audit of MUSTARD a couple of months back and the more recent move over to Wikipedia space, it has been suggested that the page be split apart into the other Music Guidlines. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (MUSTARD). Thanks --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (MUSTARD) for the full discussions and rationale behind the merge. Some sections were merged into MOS:MUSIC, the rest were left out of the merge.  MUSTARD has been marked as Historical.  Please let me know if I have left anything unresolved; I will clean up the Music MoS as soon as I can.  Thank you to all all those that have helped, encouraged and advised me throughout this long procees  --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Review site: MusicReview
, who I strongly suspect is also, has been adding numerous scores and reviews from http://www.musicreview.co.za to album articles. I've been removing them, as the site isn't listed at WP:ALBUM/REVSIT and on cursory glance it doesn't appear to be a particularly established source of professional criticism. The fact that the MusicReview article is up for deletion was also a big red flag. Since the edits seem to be in good faith, I thought it best to put the site up for community scrutiny before I issue any warnings. I've asked both Skatchrsa and the IP to offer their thoughts here, but I'd like to get some wider community opinions on the source. Reliable? Unreliable? Suitable for use in WP articles? --IllaZilla (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably not particularly reliable as a site but regardless, professional reviews should now be removed from all infoboxes any way, as per WP:ALBUM. Professional reviews should now either be deleted entirely or relocated to a dedicated "Reception" section within the article, using the Album ratings template, as outlined at WP:ALBUM. If links to professional reviews are relocated then they must be accompanied by a good amount of prose outlining how the album was received; links to professional reviews should be used to compliment text, not as a replacement for text. As for this particular user, I'm sure their edits are in good faith...I would strongly suggest trying to communicate with them on their talk page. If they're a new user, they may not even be aware of the edit summary and may be stumped as to why their contributions keep disappearing (it's happened to me before with a new user). --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know about the move from infoboxes to rating template with accompanying prose...I was part of that discussion. That isn't at all the issue here. The issue is whether MusicReview is a reliable source, and suitable to cite as a source of critical opinion in album articles. I've already dropped notes on both Skatchrsa's and the IP's talk pages, and directed them to this discussion. Hopefully they'll chime in. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would have to come down on the side of saying that it's non-reliable, especially since its own Wikipedia article lacks reliable sources. I also take back what I said about Skatchrsa probably editing in good faith, since I see that another editor on the Articles for deletion/MusicReview page has identified this user as being someone who's sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to add links to the MusicReview site. --TKohoutek1138 (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2010 (UC)


 * , thank you for sending me a message about this, I was wondering what was happening.


 * Although registered a while ago, I'm a Wiki noob, and I can assure that my additions were in good faith. I actually had no idea that I was doing anything wrong, so apologies for the inconveniences caused.  I have a list of the edits I've made, if you want me to remove them, just shout.  My intent is not self-promotion, but constructive input.  If I have failed to do that, I apologise.


 * With regards to the reliability issue - MusicReview is South Africa's biggest music e-zine. We are recognised by all major record labels and distributors on this side of the world.  In fact, a large majority of the albums reviewed are given to us by the labels/distributors to review.  All reviews and articles are written by university qualified persons, with experience as music journalists.


 * With regards to the 'up for deletion' of MusicReview, we have run into some severe difficulties, part malice (with any negative review, you are bound to upset diehard fans) and part inexperience. I understand the point of reliable 3rd party sources, but how exactly do we go about this.  It's not like one publication will write about another publication.  You wouldn't see Rolling Stone writing about Kerrang! Nonetheless,  I believe the admin result is 'keep', however, if you have advice on what we can do to make this page more Wiki friendly, please let me know.  Your input is valuable.


 * Thank you for messaging me once more.


 * Kind Regards
 * Skatchrsa (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2010 (GMT2)


 * EDIT: I have just seen this: WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites.  We certainly didn't mean to violate any terms, or step on anyone's toes.  How can we go about rectifying this? --Skatchrsa (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2010 (GMT2)


 * Thanks for commenting, Skatchrsa. It seems there are a few issues here to deal with, so I'd like to point you towards a couple of pages that may help.
 * Identifying reliable sources describes some of the criteria by which we determine if a source is reliable by encyclopedic standards. As you probably know, there are hundreds (if not more) of music sites out there on the web that publish news and reviews about musical acts and albums. A relatively small percentage of these satisfy Wikipedia's criteria of being "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". When we are presented with a new music website here at the Albums project and need to determine its reliability, publishing process, and reputation in the field, we usually look at 2 things: 1) The site's "About us" section, which should have some info on the site's history, staff, and publication standards, and 2) Whether the site itself has been mentioned by other secondary sources, and what they have to say about it. MusicReview's "About us" section is pretty sparse and doesn't say anything about it being "South Africa's biggest music e-zine". It certainly doesn't say anything about any recognition from labels or distributors, how they get their material to review, or the qualifications of the staff. All that can be gleaned from the current "About us" page is that the site was started by 2 brothers, is less than 5 years old, and has been through a few revisions. None of this speaks to its reliablity as a source of professional criticism.
 * Notability (web) describes the notability criteria for articles about websites. The idea is that a Wikipedia article about a website (such as MusicReview) shouldn't read like an advertisement; rather, it should describe the achievements, impact, and historical significance of the site itself. To do this, you need some secondary sources (independent of the site itself) giving significant coverage to the site itself. Perhaps the site has been written up in magazines, newspapers, or even other websites, or has won an award or two? Those would all be secondary sources that would help demonstrate some notability. I'm sure you can see how the current version of the article reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article; most of it is cribbed straight from the site's "About us" section, which is deliberately self-promotional.
 * Conflict of interest: Because you say above "We are recognised..." I assume you work for or represent MusicReview in some way. Since your entire contribution history has been adding MusicReview ratings and links to album articles, I think it's important that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. While you are certainly not prohibited from writing about organizations that you are involved with, you must take care when doing so. When your entire history consists of adding links to a particular website, and then you state that you are involved with that website, the red flags for spam immediately go up.
 * I hope these links help. Feel free to drop back here with additional questions. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all your help IllaZilla, that all makes good sense to me. I do indeed work for MusicReview.  What I'll do is remove any and all infobox links and any references created by myself with relation to MusicReview, and speak to the other journalists to see if they have added anything and do the same.  Apologies once again for the inconvenience.  I will do this first thing in the morning.
 * With regards to the actual MusicReview Wikipedia page, It will be rewritten along the guidelines mentioned above, I will make sure to contact you once this has been done for your approval, if this does still not meet Wikipedia's criteria, then it goes without saying that the page should be deleted.
 * No further entries will be made, unless the site is approved as a significant source, and is added to the list of accepted music review websites. I will apply for this, should the deletion issue be resolved.
 * I hope you find this acceptable. Thanks again for your help.--Skatchrsa (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2010 (GMT2)


 * Thank you very much for being so understanding; I realize Wikipedia can be difficult waters to navigate sometimes, with all of the behind-the-scenes guidelines and policies. By all means, please feel free to improve the MusicReview article. However, I'm not really the one to contact once you've done so, as I'm not in a position to "approve" anything (I'm just an editor, not even an administrator). Instead I recommend leaving a note about your improvements at Articles for deletion/MusicReview, as it may make a difference in whether the article is deleted. AfDs are given 7 days before action is taken, and with only 2 days left I notice that the discussion at present is likely to result in deletion. If that's the case, and you need more time to work on improving the article, you can ask an admin to userfy it for you: It will be placed in a user sub-page such as User:Skatchrsa/MusicReview where you may work on it at your leisure. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help on this once more IllaZilla, may I please direct your attention to this: Articles for deletion/MusicReview -- Skatchrsa (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2010 (GMT2)

Till ArticleAlertBot Returns...
In the Work to be done area of the Project page, since ArticleAlertBot is down for the count with an unknown date of repair, perhaps there should be some links to appropriate WP reports for articles that need work or review. Most notably, I suggest an easy link to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. I can't verify this, but the population of editors commenting on Album AfDs seems to have become less diverse since the Article Alerts here at the Project stopped working. Also, wherever available, links to reports for PROD's, FA candidates, requested moves, etc. could be added to the Work to be done area until ArticleAlertBot returns, if ever. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 16:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Singles from other editions
Should singles from other editions of an album be included in the infobox, such as in the Relapse (album) article? Dan56 (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A similar question was asked before, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 36 I believe the consensus was no: the infobox should only list singles that were released in conjunction with that album. I'm not sure what the specific situation is with Relapse, though. If you could describe the scenario, that might help. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ALBUMS states that the infobox should "not include singles that were added as bonus tracks on a re-release of an album." I think that what this is really referring to is non-album singles that are bundled with remastered versions of albums years after the album's original release date. However, I think I'm right in saying that technically Relapse: Refill is a re-release of the Relapse album with additional bonus tracks, so my feeling would be that a single like "Forever" (which only appears on Relapse: Refill) should not be included. Someone with a clearer understanding of Eminem and this particular album's release history will hopefully be able to provide a definitive answer though. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nominating Achtung Baby as Featured Article Candidate
I have just nominated Achtung Baby as a Featured Article candidate. You may contribute to the discussion by visiting the nomination page. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The nomination has been open for more than 2 weeks, but the article has not received an overall review by many users. If you have the time, please read the article and stop by the nomination page to share your thoughts. It would be a shame if the article is not promoted because the nomination did not receive enough attention. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Review's score/critcisim
I'm having trouble figuring out a review by the New York Times of Eminem's Recovery (Eminem album) and how to incorporate it into the article. The review seems mixed, with the reviewer commending aspects of the album, but also having criticism of those same aspects. Most of the review's tone is not very positive either. While the review should be checked out to understand this, I pointed out something key things: He calls it "the most insular of all his releases", commends Eminem's complex rapping but also writes "That propensity can be a liability too. Just because words rhyme doesn’t mean they should", writes that his pop culture references are minimal but "suggest he’s become a passive and sluggish consumer of pop culture", views that the production "for the worse"?, finds the track "WTP" as "the most alive he sounds on this album. Still, even here he’s frustratingly limited in his topical range", which may suggest that he is like that on other tracks?, and "it’s notable how few new shades of personality he shows on “Recovery.” The last couple of paragraphs seem maybe positive, but its still a little ambiguous. Now the issue is with Metacritic, as it has it scored as 70/100 at its entry page, but they could have made a mistake. Its happended b4, ex. with Worldwide Underground and its Allmusic review, as they scored it as 60/100 when the review's score is three and half stars (or 70/100). If Metacritic is to be used as a source for the article receiving whatever kind of reviews (mixed, positive etc.) it received, should stating what kind of review the NYtimes one is depend on Metacritic's score of it? Dan56 (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly why we as encyclopedia editors should not attempt to distill a reviewer's complex opinion into a single word (positive, negative, mixed). Some reviewers or publications choose to quantify their assessments with a rating (such as ), others do not. We should not attempt do boil a review down to a one-word summary merely to have something to squeeze in amongst the ratings. I've never approved of this practice and I've never seen a compelling argument to keep doing it. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. In other words, the answer to the original question, "how to incorporate it into the article", is simply this: to report, not to interpret. Then, if a reviewer's words "may suggest" x, y or z, or "seem maybe positive", or seem "a little ambiguous", all of these uncertainties and possibilities are preserved for our reader's awareness. PL290 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gramophone Archives
A colleague has informed me that the entire archive of The Gramophone, back to 1923, is available on-line (link). This is mostly classical reviews, and some jazz, but it may be of some use. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only is that a huge resource, that is more likely a hugely useful resource. I say we should add it to the reviews section for starters and let the classical and jazz projects know (if there are any active participants). Thanks very much for the notification! :) – B.hotep •talk• 16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help, like I said I'm just passing it along. I've already added it to WP:JAZZ (and left a note at WT:JAZZ). -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for that, Gyrofrog! Do I foresee a major update on Wikipedia articles over the coming weeks? Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)