Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Album

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There are only a few days left to identify versions of album articles to be included in the Wikipedia 0.7 CD and download. By specifying a particular version for each of the articles that has been selected, we can make sure that the articles are free of vandalism, and do not contain unhelpful edits of the type that end up being reverted online. I've done this for a few articles, but perhaps members of this WikiProject will want to make sure that more of the 224 album articles selected for Wikipedia 0.7 have versions specified. This is happening at User:SelectionBot/0.7/A-2#Album. Follow the directions at the top of the page to add the version information. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll put some time into it tomorrow. Thanks for the reminder. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ALM is taking care of our albums; some links have already been posted in the "Alternative music" section, and I will post duplicates in the "Albums" section soon. More importantly, someone needs to go through and decide which albums shouldn't be included in the Wikipedia 0.7 release (I for one would like to draw attention to all those soundtrack albums that don't have their own articles). WesleyDodds (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Sweet album titles

The actual title of two Sweet albums are being discussed: Talk:The Sweet Featuring Little Willy & Block Buster#Album title and Talk:Give Us a Wink#Give Us an Exclamation mark!. Anyone with an opinion in one direction or the other is kindly invited to comment. – IbLeo (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

May I add that no particular expertise on Sweet's discography is required to comment on the latter. We are looking for general guidelines on how to determine the correct title of an album when the writing on the cover, back cover and record sticker is inconsistent. – IbLeo (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Per Yahoo! Music - http://music.yahoo.com/ar-265727-discography--Sweet - I found the titles.

The Sweet is an album listed from 1999. (If these years are wrong, please ignore them; Y! is inconsistent with release dates and years.)

Give Us A Wink is an album from 2005. There is no mention of an explanation point in Y!'s discography.

I've also reviewed both talk pages. Regarding punctuation, I tend to remove it from all song titles (even commas) when I list songs in my collection as the words are all that is relevant. The only punctuation I leave is apostrophes. Thus, you can guess my opinion on Give Us A Wink as the album's title. As for the other listing the names on the cover, I say put the full name as it appears on the original as the title; thus, the page should be titled The Sweet Featuring Little Willy & Block Buster. If an album is later re-released - say as The Sweet with nothing extra - use the original page to discuss the reissue and indicate the different title (just like you'd list bonus tracks or different track orders). Keep the original album name as it appears originally for the title.

Hope this helps. If anyone differs in opinion, I'm interested in the discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to look into this. By linking to the discussions to the talk pages I was actually expecting it to continue over there... but never mind.

• On the Yahoo discography (although it does not seem very accurate to me either) the album listed simply as The Sweet is the 1999 CD reissue of the album in question, as they are identical regarding album cover and track listing. This is one more reason to believe that the title of the original LP was also simply The Sweet. As I see it, this supports the article move I did just a few hours before your entry.
• Can you refer to any policy here on Wikipedia that supports removing special characters from song or album titles? It seems a bit liberal to me to remove the comma from "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" or the leading dots from ...Baby One More Time.

– IbLeo (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Call it a personal preference. I forgot to consider the ellipis, and that I might leave as well (mind you, when you actually say the title, the ellipis doesn't show itself in speech at the beginning of a title), but I prefer not to use the comma in song titles for my own personal reasons. If there is such a guideline, I'm curious too, but the only guideline I've heard of is regarding words like "to", "the" in the middle of titles. Basically, do not capitalize them. (e.g. "The Circle of Life" instead of "The Circle Of Life" - and I still prefer the capital. *LOL*)

As a side note, I used this page because I was discussing the topic of both albums. I did not intend to refer to either album on the other's page and used this as the discussion was already begun here for both. CycloneGU (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, let us keep the generic part of the discussion here. Regarding use of capitals, we must adhere to MOS:CAPS and especially WP:ALBUMCAPS for album titles. WP:MUSTARD gives guidelines for music in general. They don't really leave much room for personal preferences, which in my opinion is a good thing. – IbLeo (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy on Footers

Greetings All, Can someone please help me find info. regarding previous discussions, here or elsewhere, on the "correct"/consensual use of footers. I think they have their function and are really useful in one or two limited cases, but these templates are now sprouting up like mushrooms and are slowly but surely being added to every individual musician, regardless of relevance. In some cases, the footer is longer than the actual article itself. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The template should be directly relevant to the article. This is somewhat subjective, however. Using the John Lennon template on, say, the Paul McCartney article would be improper; but using The Beatles template on The Quarrymen article seems acceptable. Could you please give a couple examples of what you mean? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Twas Now - thanks for your reply. I agree that any internal wikilinks, as opposed to a generic template, are sufficient as they would have a more direct bearing on the article. Of course, in trying to find the couple of examples you requested, I could only find one of the many I have seen that seemed out-of-place (Ronnie Stephenson)! But on clicking an actual template I came across the following comment to which sums up my own views:

This template does a disservice to all of the great Jazz articles by grouping them together as a footer. By attempting to be as expansive as Template:Jazzbox it blurs too many topics together and takes away the individual poignancy of having separate boxes for each of the main topics, ala Genres, Topics, Lists and Lists of Musicians [...] • Freechild'sup? 04:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is an official guideline or not, but I really think that a template should only be included in an article that is linked to in the template itself. This preserves the template's use as a convenient, one-click navigation box between related articles about a specific topic. Following this philosophy, the "jazz footer" template should not be included in the Ronnie Stephenson article, or in any article about an individual musician. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's only an essay, but WP:NAVBOX recommends that navboxes should be small in order to aid navigation and that they are only used for related articles. --JD554 (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. Given the consensus here, I'll remove those I come across that are decidely out-of-place. --Technopat (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting comments at FAC for 9.0: Live

If anyone's interested, the Slipknot live album, 9.0: Live, is currently at FAC. Please post comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/9.0: Live if you can, as it has stalled and has not received comments in the past few days. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Review sites

Regarding the current inclusion of Piero Scaruffi and his History of Rock site as acceptable reviews. I'm curious as to how it was determined that it was a valid review site.

The link was added at this point on 5 July 2006, by User:Gika. I had a look at the Archives to see if it was discussed (i.e. a determination was made that it warranted inclusion on the list - the onus of proof being on the claimant and all that). One would expect any discussion to have occurred shortly after its addition, that is, it should be in Archive 7 if any. I checked further archives, but it doesn't look like it was discussed as valid or invalid.

In the case of, for example, Beach Boys album "reviews", for the set of "reviews" for albums from Surfin' USA to Pet Sounds, a link is provided to The Beach Boys section of his History of Rock Music. This page provides only numerical ratings for these albums and an overview of the group. This page is largely in Italian (I think) and would therefore violate Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Non-English_reviews, which states that non-English reviews should not generally be included. The author in fact requests English translation assistance from his readership. As the copyright notice for the page is from almost a decade ago (1999) and the material has not yet been updated, can it really be taken as a relevent (well known) site? From the album Smile onwards, there are some English writings. These write-ups in English are merely general descriptions of the albums and the time period over which they were written, and does not provide a critical analysis or review of the materials. How does any of this constitute a "review" of any kind?

In short, how was it determined that using his website as a link for reviews was valid, and, if it was simply not challenged, does that in itself constitute its approval, or was it just missed. That is - can we delete the links, or will it cause a stink? --Roygbiv666 (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is here in archive 26, though I don't think we reached a satisfactory conclusion. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Reviews" section of the album infobox should include no more than 10 reviews. Since those albums don't have anywhere near 10 reviews, and since, aside from Allmusic, Scaruffi's are the only reviews we seem to have for many of the albums, I think we should include the reviews. Ideally, however, if a better review can be found that would bump the number of reviews above 10, then replace the most trivial review. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time replacing unexplained deletions of Scaruffi's reviews from articles. To his detriment, it can be said that he is a self-published source, and is not a professional reviewer; on the other hand, he often gives a more reasoned review (within his own frame of reference) than, say, Christgau, and of albums that tend not to get covered at all. My take on it is that WP:NPOV suggests that we do not make up our readers' minds for them and that we give them a selection of reviews (otherwise why have up to ten?) and let them make up their own minds. Is that not what we're here for? --Rodhullandemu 00:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, but if the "review" contains no critical analysis or even a statement that the album is good or bad - is that a review? Specifically, I'm referring to the Beach Boys albums noted above.

Roygbiv666 (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess for these albums in particular, his reviews could be excluded, based on this: "reviews in languages other than English should generally not be included unless the language is especially relevant to the album in question" (from WP Albums: Non-English reviews). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Image Deletion

How do I request an image be deleted? I took off its fair use rationale as I am keeping the one that appears as just the free cover, not the table that it was taken on. *LOL* CycloneGU (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as the image isn't being used in any articles, a bot will automatically tag it as orphaned and delete it within a week. There are ways you can request it to be deleted, but letting it go orphaned is simpler. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Echoes (Pink Floyd song) - some opinions requested

There has been a graphic in this article demonstrating the dynamics of the piece over its 22-minute length. An editor keeps removing it claiming, inter alia, that this is not fair use. The status of the image itself has not been impugned by any editor. Two editors have replaced the image, claiming fair use and that it enhances the article. Some further input on the talk page would be welcome. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 13:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I suspect I'll be suggesting that the contributor pursue these questions through the regular channels of WP:NFR. That's what it's for, after all. Simply removing the image doesn't fairly evaluate that question. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And have done. Simply removing the image without that consensus isn't necessarily helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that image could clearly be released under a free license. I don't think that a screengrab illustration of a soundwave needs to be licensed as non-free, even if it's of a copyrighted song. If you made it yourself, you can release it under a free license. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I was playing safe and treating it as a Derivative work thus requiring a fair-use rationale. It's not clear, but if different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work", is copyrightable and therefore can be released under GFDL. Clearly the technology does not allow the original work to be constructed from the image because of bandwidth considerations so breach of the original copyright does not seem to arise. I'll ask on Commons Village Pump and see what they say. --Rodhullandemu 15:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation query

I recently came across Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album) and Over the Rainbow (2007 album). Since the former was also released in 2007, the latter should be moved: but where to? It apparently existed at Over the Rainbow (Showtunes album) at one point; if that's where it should be, I'd have to merge the histories, which is a bit of a pain. What's the standard disambiguation for a case like this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to Over the Rainbow (2007 charity album). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD notice

Members of this WikiProject might be interested in the discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No Jacket Required Peer Review

Hello! I have heavily contributed to an article about one of Phil Collins' albums, No Jacket Required. I am very happy to say that I totally re-wrote the article (And had help from a few users along the way), and then nominated for the Good Article criteria, where it passed! I am not 100% on how the criteria for a Featured Article works, however, but I am pretty sure that the article is not at all FA material yet! So, I have decided to request for a Peer Review at this link, [1]. I cordially invite anyone from this project to comment on the article as it stands right now, and would love to see feedback from anyone! No Jacket Required is one of my favorite albums, and I would love to see it get to FA status, but I can't do it without the help of other Wiki users! Thank you for reading, and I hope to see some comments at the PR! Have a nice day! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to join a conversation

This current discussion is open for anyone who wishes to comment. The final goal is to end disruptive edit wars. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box? If you wish to comment, please do so there. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would this conversation be moved there? Merging infoboxes on singles and infoboxes on songs seems unrelated to the question of removing genre sections from infoboxes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I believe Libs linked to the wrong discussion in his original post. Fixed. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well no wonder we weren't aware of the conversation. We were advised of the conversation about merging infoboxes on singles and songs, at least. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

British charts

Apologies if this has been asked before, but is there a decent, free, online source for checking whether an album has charted in the British charts, that is considered reliable? Two possibilities are EveryHit.com and ChartStats.com. Anyone have any thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Chartstats I find is the best source. It lists every week in the history of the UK Chart. However, the albums chart is still undergoing work and at the moment is missing the complete chart of some weeks. Also keep in mind that recently, they have started to feature the whole top 100 singles and albums, but officially only the top 75 is counted as genuine charts, so the positions 76-100 should be ignored. Still, it is far better than Every Hit, which is incomplete in its information, and is the site I always use for chart info.Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

acharts.us

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#acharts.us for a discussion of the reliability of acharts.us that is relevant to this project. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Help

Can somebody help copyedit the Into the Fire article which is a current GA nominee. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll note for the benefit of any copyeditors who may assist that technical personnel is required for the article to meet B class criteria by this project. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Number-one albums in the United Kingdom

This category is underpopulated. If you come across and album that was number one in the UK, please add it to Category:Number-one albums in the United Kingdom.

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Another approach, rather than just adding them as you find them, would be to go through the articles listed at List of number-one albums (UK) (from 1950s to the present) and add the category to each album article. Using AWB, this could be achieved probably in a short time. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have AWB but I've never used it before. I wouldn't want to mess anything up. I'll just go through the list of number one albums. Might take a while... --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now added albums from List of number-one albums from the 1960s (UK) using HotCat. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Genres

Why have the genres disappeared from some of the album infoboxes? Charmed36 (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this on the template page, here. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box? If you wish to comment, please do so there. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a section there now specifically about the removal of genre from album infoboxes. It can be found here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey: Music from the Motion Picture

Could someone please do an assessment on this page and Transformers: The Album? Sarujo (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Both are start-class, low priority. Some more prose could bump them to C-class. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to note a few specifics, they need personnel sections detailing all musical contributors and additions to the tracklist of time & composer info. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes a stub?

New to editing album articles. What makes an album article a stub? More specifically, what kinds of additional information would be necessary to make http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boi-ngo no longer considered stubby? That article has the basic info, track list, and so on. I was under the impression that stubs had to be even less detailed. Katyism (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Generally speaking, there is an assessment guideline here that explains the difference between stubs & start class & etc. in album articles. Specifically to that album, the article was assessed in 2006, here. At the time, it looked like this. As it is today, that article is a "start" class. Generally, if you've contributed substantially to an article and want it assessed or reassessed, you can list it [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment here]. (The exception would be if you think it is "good article" or "featured article" quality, as those must be requested here and here. I'll go ahead and reassess that one to reflect changes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Tracklist template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wiki-linking every contributor on an album?

I've been overhauling some of my pages lately, but noticed that others I made a while ago do not have every musician linked due to their not having a page. I'm now a bit unsure if I should be linking absolutely every single person mentioned within an album page, or just those deemed important enough to warrant a future page. For example, the acclaimed drummer Atma Anur (who has played on countless '80s shred albums) still does not have a page; hence to me it would make sense to link his name because it's pretty well-known within that genre of music. But then, what about a backing vocalist nobody's ever heard of, or a random session percussionist? It's likely such musicians will never have a page, so that's why I'm becoming a bit wary of linking everyone. Mac dreamstate (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wikilink those who are likely to be notable enough to warrant a future page, and not necessarily even all of those. But that's just my approach. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it can be very difficult to tell who's likely to be notable. In the 1960s, Rita Coolidge, for example, did tons of great session work but did not achieve solo success until the early to mid 1970s; if those articles about albums on which she appeared in the 60s redlinked her, they would have been blued eventually - but if they hadn't been linked at all, it would have been difficult to have found all the references. Perhaps it helps if you were there at the time, like Woodstock. --Rodhullandemu 23:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone is not currently notable, it's better not to redlink them. If they become notable later we can deal with that then. Per WP:REDLINK, "Do not create red links to articles that will never be created..." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, but "articles that will never be created" seems to defy the lessons of history. We can't possibly know this except in hindsight, and the alternative would seem to be to leave current information unlinked and then rely upon some friendly bot or AWB user to do this (even if it's considered by the author of such an article). We tend to be pretty good at keeping up with current issues, but somewhat less efficient at bringing historical topics (particularly with respect to music) up to date. --Rodhullandemu 23:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless we make a policy of wikilinking every name, this one seems unavoidable. :) Some albums get quite the roster of personnel. Comes to mind this early "start" class article of mine, All Killer, No Filler: The Anthology#Personnel. (I'm kind of embarrassed to link that one. Now that I know how to use Google books, I need to go back and see if I can expand it.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The guideline says "articles that will never be created", but what I think that really means is articles that shouldn't be created now, because the musician or other subject is not notable enough at this point in time. I tend to err on the side of caution and only redlink musicians who I'm pretty sure are notable enough to have their own article now. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The guideline "Do not create red links to articles that will never be created" means do not create red links to articles that will never be created because certain things cannot have articles written about them. It does not mean we should guess about a person's future notability. Red link what seems appropriate. This is up to editors' judgment. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's up to editor's judgment. But my reading of the guideline suggests that one should not create red links to subjects that would not meet the notability requirements, including certain musicians. Here's more from WP:REDLINK: "Sometimes it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable. Furthermore, academic research conducted in 2008 has shown that red links are what drives Wikipedia growth.... Articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles, such as a celebrity's romantic interest (who is not a celebrity in his or her own right) or every chapter in a book; nor should they have red links to deleted articles.... Keep in mind there are various notability guidelines (WP:NOTABILITY), which exist for a number of subjects, including people (WP:BIO)." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult at present to know what the guideline actually means, since I haven't looked at any debate that lead to its creation; however, it seems unduly prescriptive with that wording. We have the same problem with Deaths in 2008 in that daily additions are often redlinked but actually do lead to the creation of articles, although stubs, and are sometimes cleaned up later on. After that, of course, they frequently linger on without ever being improved further. That's the problem with musicians in that they may have contributed to many notable recordings but not be of independent notability. --Rodhullandemu 00:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wowsers, that's quite the list of personnel! And I thought my article for Eyes of the World had a fair few contributors on it (all of whom I decided to Wiki-link on a whim, just to fulfil my continuity gripes). Seeing as at this point there doesn't seem to be an absolute consensus on the issue, what I'll do is rethink who I'll provide links to in the future; keeping in mind if they'll eventually have an article or not. If you look at some of the names on that album's list, and considering how old and niche-genre it is, I would be willing to be that pages for 90% of those performers will never see the light of day. Plain and simply, should I go back and un-link them? Mac dreamstate (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a fair number of session-players there who are possibly members of other, more notable ensembles, but not individually. As such, I'd say until they become notable per se, they shouldn't be linked. My experience of the music industry tells me that it's littered with such people, and worthy though they might be, they aren't notable as we understand the term. --Rodhullandemu 00:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Another way to decide whether someone warrants an article, is to click through the redlink and check "what links here". If there are any other articles that lead to that page creation page, it may be worth linking. -Freekee (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Rate Your Music.com rankings

I brought up on the issue up at the WikiProject Music talk page about why I think the rankings of an album on the website Rate Your Music should be allowed to be added to an album page (alongside similar magazine reader polls and various other consensus of opinion). Since it deals mostly with album placements, I'm providing a link to that discussion here, too (easier to combine all the discussion in one place). Here is the discussion for anyone interested. bob rulz (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with AC/DC album articles

I've recently been having a dispute with an IP editor over various AC/DC articles, notably Let There Be Rock (international album), Let There Be Rock (Australian album), Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap (Australian album) and High Voltage (1976 album). The editor is persistently adding credits to various band members, to which they are not entitled - for example, he claims that Malcolm Young played bass on Let There Be Rock, and that Phil Rudd sang backing vocals on various songs. I have never seen this corroborated anywhere, and it is certainly not stated on any official AC/DC release, including those mentioned above. I asked the editor on his talk pages to provide references or sources, and he has made no response whatsoever. He just continues to revert. I am not particularly familiar with the normal procedures here, so I'm asking for advice. Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right to ask for citations for credits which are different from the official album notes. I often see edits (and edit wars) about who played which instruments, or sang, on individual tracks where the album does not show track by track credits, inclusion of minor instruments not mentioned in the credits (i.e. banjo where the album only mentions guitar), and uncredited session musicians. As for what to do about it, continue reverting (but watch out for the 3RR per day rule) and post your concerns on the artist's talk page (since it affects multiple articles). Hopefully you can get others involved with the reverts so you don't do them all yourself, and then you have some back-up. If the problem persists, you may have to get an admin involved, but try the other idea first. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I appreciate it - that's pretty much how I see it too. He's been quiet today but if he edits again, I'll bring it up on the AC/DC talk page, which is always pretty active. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox documentation

Re: revert, this should not have been done without discussion, is it a problem?.

I don't believe that prior discussion is mandatory; and yes, there is a problem, or rather problems, both with the length of this project page and do with the level of headers and their nesting. See Template talk:Documentation#Heading_fix. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Instrumentals vs songs

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

Quick Capitalisation Question!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

scaruffi as good critic

sorry but this man is NOT professional, i mean:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm inclined to agree that he's borderline at best; however, he does seem to have some cache as a music journalist. For instance, he is cited for his overview of rhythm & blues in Music of the World War II Era, a 2007 book published under the Greenwood Publishing Group, an imprint of Houghton Mifflin. (See [2]). Under WP:RS, it notes that the authors of reliable source publications "are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." One book ref doesn't establish a "generally", but I think we need to think about it carefully before removing him altogether as a possible resource. Perhaps he should not be listed on our Wikipedia:ALBUM#Review_sites, which after all only indicates "some websites with reviews or links to reviews that you can use in album infoboxes" (emphasis added), but I don't believe he should be listed under "non-professional reviews" either, as I don't think it's true that "[a]s a matter of policy, reviews from" his site "are not considered professional, and should not be included in album infoboxes" (emphasis added :)). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i have one question, if i make a blog and post my reviews here would this be also okay?

i mean it's not that hard to write my own opinion in my articles without any professionality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.226.229 (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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