Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Discussion

Old talk moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/archive and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/archive 2

Sec vs. S

The 'sec' wording on the albumbox was recently changed to 's.' The 'sec' wording already exists on the many album pages that exist, and that form corresponds with the 'min' used for 'minute.' I've changed the 's' back to 'sec' since I believe continuity is important unless there is a good reason to change something like this. If there was a reason that this (and the other albums pages) should be changed to 's', I apologize for reverting the edit and feel free to remake it with a note here explaining why the change was made. Thanks! -- Jrdioko 04:11, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Some of the albums by Rush were also changed from 'sec' to 's'. However, I have found no explanation for this change. In any case, it should have been discussed here before making such a template change. If one is going to change 'sec' to 's' why not change 'min' to 'm' to be consistent? I agree with your revert Jrdioko until this issue has been discussed. RedWolf 04:49, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

I think this is part of a wider attempt to standardise to official SI abbreviations. I agree with you though, it doesn't look right next 'min' which can't be changed to 'm' ('m'=metre). (This change has been made to a lot of album pages). - Lee (talk) 10:52, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Once I thought about it I realized the change was probably a switch to SI like Lee said. Maybe since changes have already started to be made we need to discuss it here and come up with something final that can be applied to all the new and old pages. 'Sec' could be avoided by simply putting something like 38:42, but that seems much more confusing than '38 min 42 sec.' It would be nice to use SI, and I'm usually someone in support of standardizing things like that, but '38 min 42 s' does look strange. What does everyone else think? Any ideas? -- Jrdioko 15:10, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

The options: (as I see them)

38 min 42 sec -- A wholesale revert and damn the standards.
38 min 42 s -- Bring everything into line with style but end up looking odd.
38 m 42 s -- Looks ok, but there may be problems with m = metre.
38:42 -- meh.
2,322s -- Maybe not...
Other.

I'm stumped. - Lee (talk) 16:14, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Given those options, I would choose #4 and then #1. The others just don't work for me. Since we don't use the min and sec stuff for the individual track times, I don't see it as a big deal if we drop it for the "Length" in the infobox. However, for some double and triple albums, we are talking a couple of hours which would then tempt many to probably want to use hours, minutes, seconds unless they give the times for each CD or disc. Would it really be an issue for people if we just used mm:ss instead of mm min ss sec?

This was my comment which I added on April 14 but forgot to sign. RedWolf 02:34, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

I would tend to think that to avoid future SI conversions switching all the album pages from whatever we decide here that the original "mm min ss sec" doesn't work. "mm min ss s" really does look weird and "mm m ss s" I'd say definitely can't be used. I'd say go with mm:ss, but that is a little confusing as to what is minutes, seconds, and hours, especially if some albums are longer than an hour. You could do something like 76:43 in that case, but that's even more confusing. I'm stumped as well. I'd say "mm min ss sec" is the best looking and least confusing, but I'm afraid that would result in future SI changes. Not that it's absolutely vital that we stay standarized with this, but it would be nice. -- Jrdioko 23:26, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think with the upcoming template namespace (which is live at the test pedia), it will be as simple as changing a MediaWiki page to update the format of infoboxes. Tuf-Kat 01:01, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea, would you mind passing along the URL to that infobox project? I haven't looked around much at the test site. -- Jrdioko 01:20, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

See this edit window for an article on Belgium using a countrybox template. I'm not sure where the Template namespace is discussed in detail (somewhere at meta, but can't find it now), but my understand is that a page called Template:Albumbox will be created and at an article (say Abbey Road), one need only type:

{{Template:Album |Title - Abbey Road |Cover - Image:AbbeyRoad.gif |Format - LP |Band - The Beatles

And so on, thus automagically creating an infobox. (as the Belgium link above shows, the markup is somewhat more complicated than I wrote it... not sure why, exactly). So, that's the gist of it all. Now that I think about it, however, if the "min" "sec" notation is in the box on the right, it might not be considered part of the template by the computer, and would thus need to be entered individually on each albumbox, but there's probably a way to avoid that. Tuf-Kat 04:24, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

That's awesome. I've been wishing for a feature like this. —LarryGilbert 19:13, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to experiment with when it is released. -- Jrdioko 04:36, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I've already been playing with this over at test. The template is at Template:Albumbox (there's also Template:Review for the reviews). The code (from Aquemini) looks like

{{Albumbox|
Title=Aquemini|
Artist=OutKast|
Type=Album|
Artwork=Aqueminicvr.jpg|
Released-day=[[September 28]]|
Released-year=[[1998]]|
Recorded=|
Genre=[[Southern rap]]|
Length=74:47|
Record label=[[La Face]]|
Producer=[[Organized Noize]], [[Babyface]] and OutKast|
Previous=[[ATLiens]]|
Previous-year=[[1996]]|
Next=[[Stankonia]]|
Next-year=[[2000]]
}}

There's also a hidden Color (and Alt-Color - for dual types like Ummagumma) parameter, which I cheated with by making it default to orange. Length should probably be split into two though, min and sec, to make format changes easier. Unfortunately, I had to do a bit of a kludge to get the reviews in. I am very open to better suggestions on that score. - Lee (talk) 11:20, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Personnel

I was reading through the new formatting of this page (which is much clearer by the way, thanks Lee), and I saw that part near the bottom titled "Personnel." Shouldn't this information be on the band's article and not on the album page? Maybe you do need it just in case the band members are different for different albums, but I don't think "Personnel" is the right name. Also, in that case, what do you put on the main band's article (if the members are different for different albums)? Again I hate to create a mess with this standardization business, but I always like to see some sort of "format" that's recommended to use for all articles. Then again, I am mildly annoyed by the fact that every disambiguation page has a different sentence at the top ("Blah can refer to," "Blah has several different meanings," "Blah can mean one of several different things," etc., so maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine. In any case, I think personnel has to go unless that's the correct name for the members of a band. -- Jrdioko 23:26, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

In most cases, the "personnel" is much more than a list of band members. The band members should be on it, of course, but many or most albums are recorded with the help of at least a handful of session musicians, plus producers, engineers, cover artists, etc. Also, a particular band member may be a bassist, but may also play the vibraphone or cow bell or glockenspiel on a particular song -- may be appropriate on the band page, but is certainly appropriate on the article page. See, for example, Aquemini, which has dozens of personnel, but only two are members of the crew OutKast (admittedly, hip hop is kind of a special case, because guest rappers and producers are so common). Tuf-Kat 00:59, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. So is "personnel" the preferred term for such a list? I haven't heard that term used in that context, but I'm not an expert in music by any means so I was just curious if that is correct. Also, now I see that the list can be useful on a page where the personnel covers more than the band, but, back to my other question, what should be included on the ==Band== section of the band's article if different members produced different records, and is that the correct heading name. There isn't a Wikiproject for band pages is there (I looked around before but didn't see one)? -- Jrdioko 01:17, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Nope, there's no WikiProject for bands as of yet. Feel free to start one if it floats your boat. I'm not sure if personnel is the best word, but nothing else strikes me as more appropriate. Aquemini has separate sections for performers and technicians, so maybe that should be more standard.

Your other question (what should be included on the ==Band== section of the band's article if different members produced different records, and is that the correct heading name.) I don't really understand. If a band had a changing line-up, that should obviously be explained in the band's history. A list of band members should probably include all members, with appropriate notes for those which were not a part of the band throughout its existence. Bands with many line-up changes over the years might need some special format to make it easier to see who was a member when, but I'm not sure how best to do it. It has occurred to me that for such a band, a tabled discography with albums in colors depending on which lineup recorded it might be wise, but I've never implemented anything. All in all, I'm not sure there should be any policy on how to handle it, because the circumstances will be different for different bands. Tuf-Kat 04:05, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusing question and thanks for the answer. I don't think I have enough knowledge on the subject to start a Wikiproject for bands, but it seems to me if albums and songs are being standarized that it might not be a bad idea to do the same for bands. Then again, there are so many different situations that could exist with bands (such as what you were discussing above) that perhaps a little variation and flexibility is a good thing. I just thought I'd bring up the idea. -- Jrdioko 04:36, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Albumbox colors

I've just added all of the album covers for michael jackson that were on the missing images list and entered them onto the relevant album pages. I noticed that some of the colours are set as darkgreen for the Albumbox on these pages and just wanted confirmation that the correct policy at the moment is for them to be orange???. didn't want to change them incase orange had now been switched to green as the standard colour.Scraggy4 19:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Orange is the standard color for "Original studio albums," but different types of albums are designated different colors. Take a look at the main project page for details. HTH, Jrdioko 01:23, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

many thanks, I have now noticed my oversight. That's what happens when you work with blind people for a living, it sometimes rubs off.Scraggy4 16:47, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are these colours sufficiently contrasting with the foreground colours for all viewers? I can imagine that readers with diminished eye-sight would have problems reading some of these texts on relatively dark backgrounds.--Branko

I was waiting for someone to mention this problem with the wiki colour boxes. As far as I aware my organizations policy is for all text to be made available in either Arial or Times New Roman with a font size of 16 as well as supplying audio and braille versions. All background colours should also be avoided if at all possible. Obviously very few articles are written with thought for the visually impaired (many older people also develop various vision problems which makes contrast a problem) in mind. The easiest solution is by making a text only version of the page available for all users to who this may be of help. Scraggy4 19:08, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Needs cover

After a message from user:Jrdioko on my talk page I was wondering if the needs cover page could be expanded to include other info. that users haven't been able to find, possibly in easy to use table form something like the following.Scraggy4 11:23, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

band name	album name	cover	release formats	release date	recorded	length	label	producer	no. of reviews
Relaxed Muscle	A Heavy Night With...	ok	ok	ok	still required	still required	ok	still required	3

That sounds like a great idea. Move the /Needs cover to something more general (I can't think of anything great off the top of my head right now), and put all the albumbox info there. After a new article has been made, the user can go to that page, copy and paste the box, fill in the info, and then others can take it from there. The only problem I can see is if some of the more detailed information simply isn't available anywhere, but then whoever is working on it can just remove that entry. Suggestions? — Jrdioko (Talk) 17:39, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

I have put a possible example of an album / single information required box on my user page from the list on the needs cover page. This would allow all song missing info to be in one place. I thought I found a different page earlier that was for missing info but I can't find it now (sort of explaining the problem and possibly confirming the need for info in one place.) It would also have to be explained on the album & song project pages. anybody have any suggestions?? Scraggy4 00:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Album

I have turned the message at MediaWiki:Album into a hybrid opentasksbox and comejoinWikiProjectbox. Thoughts?Tuf-Kat 20:18, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

It's funny, I'd just been thinking of doing an open tasks box (Great minds etc.). I hadn't thought of doing it on MediaWiki:Album, though. Interesting... It might need a little tweaking, especially once Needs cover gets fleshed out to include all missing info. It might also be an idea to mention Needs infobox (which could probably do with filling up) as well. - Lee (talk) 20:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've now completed entering all of the albums (from List of albums) by bands beginning with 'A' that have some or all albumbox info missing onto my userpage. It didn't take very long and if you compare against the Needs infobox you will see that just the letter A on my list is far longer than the whole of current Needs Infobox. I will continue to add B, C, D, etc so feel free to take info from my page or if you create a new page for the info let me know. Apologies if I am doing something wrong but it just seemed like it needed doing and I would like to track down all of the missing info. Help appreciated with this obviously. Scraggy4 22:05, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My problem with this is that very few albumboxes are complete, and by including pages without albumboxes as well, you're effectively mirroring the entire list of albums on a single page, but with vastly more information per listing. It's just going to be too unwieldy.

My suggestion is this, (this runs slightly opposite to how things currently stand)

Make Needs cover list only those pages without albumboxes (or covers obviously).
Make Needs infobox list only those pages with covers (but no albumbox).
Move the page you're working on to Needs info (say), shift the info you've already collected on non-albumbox pages to the relevant page (cover/infobox) and restrict this page to just those pages with albumboxes (by using this list).

We can then, much more quickly, go through the rest of the list pages and sift the remaining album pages onto needs cover/infobox as appropriate.

This way we get a progression 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> complete, with different people able to work comfortably on different tasks. Plus the first two pages only need to link to the page in question (like they currently do), so the sizes shouldn't be too large. What do you think? - Lee (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee, I would say that the

Needs infobox to only include those without either cover or infobox;
Needs cover to be renamed as Needs sleeve image to include those with boxes but without image;
and the third page to be Needs more info or Incomplete infobox to include those with boxes but info missing.

Some items would appear on links 2) & 3) but 3)would give a list of all incomplete boxes whereas 2) may include complete boxes except for cover and some incomplete without cover.

Another alternative I see is to have list 1) as above, and forget 2) as the fact the image is missing would be included in 3).

Whichever is decided upon these pages should be clearly directed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, MediaWiki:Album, Album, Music

I can also see advantage in adding options 1),2),3) or 1) & 3) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, MediaWiki:Album as a See Also from each artist/band individual page. This may seem a huge task but all it would not take long to copy and paste. I could see this encouraging many more people to become involved with adding the odd snippet of info here and there. I personally did not find the relevant info regarding the project that easy to find and not classing myself as the dimmest person in the world I expect a few others have had the same problem. I still feel that some clarity needs to given on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums page regarding formats Cd/vinyl etc that I mentioned previously.

Hopefully these lists will soon decrease in size as we, and hopefullly others, clean up the pages.Scraggy4 22:34, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like we agree on what should be on 3, anyway. I'd suggest you pick a name and move it to a subpage sharpish (it reeeally shouldn't be in the main article space). I still prefer my suggestion (but then I would), because I see those three tasks - uploading an image, adding an albumbox, filling in missing info - as totally separate and distinct, and I'm more inclined to add a box to page with artwork already present (because I'm lazy). I do agree that under your system 2) would be redundant.

As for adding links to these pages, from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, MediaWiki:Album - definitely, absolutely, it would be pointless otherwise; from Album, Music - definitely not, articles should avoid linking into the wikipedia: namespace except where absolutely neccessary (I think there's a policy page on this somewhere). Same goes for the See alsos (this is also the reason why the list you're compiling needs to be moved). If they're linked to from MediaWiki:Album, then they'll be linked to from every album talk page, which is good enough. - Lee (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Album box necessity?

Okay, now I don't mean to offend here, so try to read what I have to say objectively. I have just finished adding albumboxes to all of the Modest Mouse album articles. And, thinking back, I really think they looked better before, with the info in the article, and the album cover just float right, like any other image. The albumboxes seem kind of unnecessary. Plus the text of the article seems to run too close to the albumbox - like there's not enough buffer space around the albumbox or something. I just think the articles looked better before. And why is orange the color? Why not something more standard like white or grey or wikipedia-yellow? Thoughts? blankfaze 23:08, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you see, those Modest Mouse articles are little more than stubs at the moment. The point of the table is to condense certain pertinant information at the top of a decent-sized article for easy reference. You should really think about adding more to the article than removing the albumbox.

As for the orange - dunno, I wasn't around when that decision was made. I think it might be a little too late in the day to change it, unfortunately. When the new mediawiki software (1.3) comes, with the ability to use templates, it might be worth rethinking the colors, if it's decided we should replace the existing albumboxes with templated versions, that is (which I think we should). It might also mean making sweeping changes like that would be easier in the future. - Lee (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I see what you're saying. I just think these Albumbox things are kind-of ugly (no offence to anyone). But Wikipedia is a community encyclopædia, not my encyclopædia. blankfaze | &#9835 01:28, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

New Skin

With the new skin, the albumbox is pushed to the top of the page instead of forming a bar on the right. What can be done about this?

Acegikmo1 01:17, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, the parser isn't accepting the {{msg:albumboxStart}} in the first line of the table. I tried moving it to the template namespace, but that didn't help. Currently, the only solution would be to ditch the msg and use subst instead. I've been working on a templated version over on test (see Aquemini), but it's still a bit buggy. - Lee (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be the skin's fault, not the album boxes', so why don't we ask the people who work on the skin to see if they can do anything about the skin to fix it? -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon Talk]] 01:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the only project suffering this problem with the new skin. I believe any project using templates for their infobox/taxobox has also ran into the same issue. I think the skin needs to be fixed, rather than us trying for a workaround. RedWolf 03:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them are having problems. WikiProject Elements seems to be doing fine. --Caliper 23:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed category schema

Fairly simple - two "top-level" categories "Category:Albums by artist" and "Category:Albums by year". Each album page is then placed into two categories, "Category:<Artist name> albums" and "Category:<year> albums", which are then placed as sub-categories into the respective top-level category. For consistency, the artist name should be the same as the title of their article (in terms of punctuation, "&"/"and", use of "The", etc.) minus any disambiguating terms of course.

Suggestions, improvements, refinements? - Lee (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The album boxes look messed up now. They don't align to the right any more (I'm using the standard skin), and they aren't "boxed". I noticed this happened after the Categories were added, but it may be something else, like the {{msg:AlbumboxStart}}. Can someone try to fix this? -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon Talk]] 18:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments in "New Skin" above. I believe it's a bug in the MediaWiki 1.3 template mechanism. Other projects that also use a template to define a table have the same problem at the moment. RedWolf 19:54, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]