Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Albums (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Adding dates to album listings in a templateEdit

I was visiting Template:Pentatonix, removing non-linking album listings as inappropriate for navigation templates, and I noted that the template had dates applies to all the albums and EPs. I don't recall seeing that before for templates, and I felt that dates were more for directories and should not be in the navigation box template. I read the guidelines in WP:NAVBOX, and I am not sure after reading it that it does clearly state that non-linking listings should be removed from Navboxes, and I am unsure about dates. I just reviewed the Navbox for Template:The Rolling Stones and Template:The Beatles albums, and see that The Rolling Stone listing includes dates and the Beatles albums listing does not include date, so I am guessing it is by personal choice. I would like to ask for thoughts on this. Mburrell (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes they are in there and I find them helpful for context. I recently made {{Phoebe Snow}} and {{Rick Danko}} and included them. Note that while there is a strong preference for existing, stand-alone articles, there could be times when including a redlink or a redirect that isn't bypassed could be appropriate, like if a band has five albums and we only have full articles for four, but the third redirects to their discography. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 04:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I've always taken it as a style choice. It's not unhelpful info and there's not really reason to not have them so long as the page doesn't get overcrowded. Like the Rolling Stones one might be better off without them just because of how big it is, but it's not a big deal. In the ones I've made I mostly don't add them, though a couple times (Tobacco and Sons of Kemet) I have and I think it looks fine with 'em. To be honest, I probably wasn't thinking about it much when I did make those and just did it because I happened to remember it was a thing I could add. But the rest that don't have 'em look fine too. So I guess it's editor's discretion unless more editors come along with a major consensus either way. QuietHere (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't recall the exact venue, but it was a big debate a few years back. Some felt it was helpful, while others didn't feel it aided in navigation and felt it should be removed. It ended up being a stalemate, with the only agreement being to treat it sort of like WP:ENGVAR, as in, don't Switch back and forth between formats. The fact that I'm the only one so far remembering this though is probably a testament to how little it's been enforced though... Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
No, I remember the debate as well, I was just trying to find it before commenting. I'm also ambivalent about including the years or not, although like QuietHere, I think it can make things a bit difficult to read in a large navbox and just takes up room. I know that WikiProject Jazz has a rule of making the years in the navbox the recording date of an album, rather than the release date – for jazz albums it's very common that these dates can vary wildly, as live concerts may be recorded but only officially released years later. It does mean, however, that the dates and the chronological order vary between the infobox and the navbox, which I sometimes find confusing, and I wonder whether in these cases it's better to leave the navbox dates out entirely. Richard3120 (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
In that case I would stick strictly to release dates just to avoid that confusion and keep standard with other genres. QuietHere (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
There are good reasons for jazz using recording dates. Putting recording dates in a template is possible, as is including a statement that the years are of recording. I see no reason to change this. EddieHugh (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I mean if it's made clear that they're recording dates then I suppose it's fine. Excuse me, I hadn't seen any examples and I suppose I spoke out of turn. QuietHere (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
It's fine. An example is Template:Lee Morgan (click on 'show'). However, I don't know how accurate it is! EddieHugh (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, if it's clearly stated then it okay. EddieHugh, I do understand why jazz albums are often listed by recording dates: unlike albums in almost any other genre, which are generally both recorded and released in the same chronological order, jazz albums are often released years after recording and in haphazard order, with the result that there are albums being released now in the 2020s by musicians who died 20 or 30 years ago. Seeing dozens of "2010s albums" and "2020s albums" for long-deceased artists in the navbox would be weird, I absolutely understand that. My concern was simply that if it isn't made clear in some way, it could be confusing to the casual reader to see entirely different dates listed in the infobox and the navbox. Richard3120 (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, yes. There's the additional point that published jazz discographies are usually presented by recording dates (release dates are often not mentioned). This also aids listeners, who are often interested in how a musician changed over time – this can be obscured by sequencing based on when record labels chose to release material. EddieHugh (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't doubt any of this, the main part of the discourse though is if that truly belongs in navigation templates or if it's more suited for discographies. If we're re-litigating the issue, I believe the latter, but if not, I won't push further. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Here are links to a couple of archived RFCs related to the topic:
--StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, thank you. This answered my questions. Mburrell (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep years for albums - I support keeping the year of release for albums in navigation boxes for musicians and musical ensembles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

My request at WP:CR was rejectedEdit

My request at WP:CR to formally close this discussion was rejected weeks ago. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment - Archived request. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    Rightfully so. You should take their advice and stop asking for closure in so many unnecessary situations. Sergecross73 msg me 22:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


Progarchy is a website dedicated to progressive rock. Its "About" page[1] includes "Our goal is to support beautiful music, specifically progressive rock in all its varied forms, through album reviews, interviews, concert reviews, and articles. We are all volunteers." It lists three "Editors", a number of "Progarchists", and appears to be well-organized. Currently, it's used as a source in 20 WP articles.[2]

A quick google book search[3] shows that Progarchy appears in a list of references for one academic-type book, where one of the listed editors is named in the main text. But that's about it; the other two editors don't show up and I didn't go through the Progarchists. The similarly named Prog Archives is listed on WP:NOTRSMUSIC with this discussion, but there doesn't appear to be a connection. Should Progarchy be considered a reliable source for WP purposes? Or perhaps just selected contributors?

Ojorojo (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Progressive rock sources are a big problem in general for Wikipedia. The ones that are used most frequently for prog-related articles are Prog Archives, DPRP (Dutch Progressive Rock Page) and Sea of Tranquility, but none of them look like good sources to me, more like group blogs. But I also understand that it's difficult to find any coverage of this genre – the one genuinely reliable source that I know of is the UK's Prog magazine. Progarchy actually looks better than the three sources I listed above (it has editors and properly-conducted interviews with the big names of the genre), but I'll need to have a further look. Richard3120 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
IPs have been trying to add prog rock for Led Zeppelin's version of "In My Time of Dying" for over a year. The latest added Progarchy as a source.[4] Written by Progarchist Connor Mullin, it mentions the song in passing, "Zeppelin’s repertoire only became more progressive after the immense success of IV ... Physical Graffiti not only featured their longest song ('In My Time of Dying', eleven minutes)", before praising "Kashmir" as "one of the finest progressive rock songs ever composed".
A google book search for Mullin doesn't show he has written any books or is mentioned in any music-related ones. Anyway, it's a stretch to use prog rock as a genre based on the fact that it is "their longest song", unless there is something special about the source.
Ojorojo (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
For "In My Time of Dying", or for "Kashmir"? Not sure how you can use a description of one song as a genre for a completely different song. Led Zep weren't particularly proggy anyway, throughout their career - not sure I would even consider "Kashmir" as prog rock, its not the first genre that comes to mind when the song is usually described. Richard3120 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. The other sources describe "In My Time of Dying" as blues-based – not surprising, given Page's slide guitar playing and the fact that it was originally recorded by Blind Willie Johnson. BTW, Prog Archives mentioned earlier is used in 181 articles[5] even though it is listed on WP:NOTRSMUSIC/WP:ALBUMAVOID as "Non-professional review website, fails WP:USERG". —Ojorojo (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
No opinion on source, but to me sounds like the specific problems with how the source is used may be easier solved by more stringent application of WP:OR (cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article) and WP:NEWSBLOG. PaulT2022 (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the "does not clearly support" approach is taken at the current Talk:In My Time of Dying#RfC on progressive rock. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

My request at WP:CR was rejectedEdit

My request at WP:CR to formally close this discussion was rejected weeks ago. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Stone rating system changes (and issue)Edit

On 18 August 2022, Rolling Stone posted an article online entitled "Welcome to the New Rolling Stone"[1] wherein it was announced that the magazine would no longer be using star ratings in their reviews for new music. The article states:

"No more starred reviews for new music. If you’re into pop culture in 2022, you’re too sophisticated to let some arbitrary number guide your tastes. So we’ll tell you right away when a new single is an instant classic or an album is an absolute must-hear. After that, our critics will help you make up your own damn mind."

Should this be clarified in the "Rolling Stone" entry in Reliable Sources, which states that they use a 5-star rating system?

Additionally, I have located at least one album review[2] on their website (published in 2016 when the 5-star rating system was still in use) which appears to use a 4-star system, with the album in question receiving 3.5 out of 4 stars. The Wiki page for the album[3] states that the album was given 3.5 out of 5 stars, with the citation containing a dead link. How should this album rating be dealt with (as well as any other reviews that may be found which use a 4-star system)? Should it be assumed that this was not a mistake, and thus the rating should be reported in a 4-star format? Should the rating be discounted entirely, as it does not appear to conform to the magazine's (previously) established system? Or something different from either of those options? Colebateman97 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I at least fixed the first issue on reliable sources. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 11:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I've made a note to check for the print version of the Rolling Stone Jim James review when I'm in the British Library in a few weeks' time, and hopefully that will tell us whether it's an error on the website or not. At least one album, Little Earthquakes, has a different rating online than it does in the magazine (I've checked twice, to make sure I wasn't making a mistake).
Rolling Stone started using five-star ratings in early 1981 but discontinued them in mid-1985, before restarting them at the beginning of 1988 – I have the exact dates somewhere in my notebook. These dates could probably be added to the clarification that Colebateman97 notes above. Richard3120 (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I tried looking in the British Library, but they only have Rolling Stone up to 2014. Richard3120 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I was already aware of the removal of ratings (and addition of the occasional "must-hear" and "instant classic" badge labels), but I only just learned about the 4-star rating change. It is not uniform and across-the-board, but it seems to have altered a plethora of reviews. I was alerted when an editor "updated" a rating to reflect the 4-star system. Should we really be updating every changed score? Or should we link to an archive page? Οἶδα (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
@Colebateman97: @Richard3120: I just realized that the rating system has not changed. The website now just shows the ratings as individual stars. For example, an album that was given a 3 stars out of 5 rating is now represented as     and no longer      . But the rating system is still out of 5 stars. A few other publications do this; The Austin Chronicle for example. This is mostly fine but unfortunately, as I mentioned above, some users will think the rating system has changed and will incorrectly "update" articles as such. Οἶδα (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Parental AdvisoryEdit

Parental Advisory has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:IIII (album)#Requested move 2 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Print version vs. online editionEdit

Recently an IP has been changing some NME ratings, from a rating out of ten to a five-star rating. Technically, they're not doing anything wrong: the NME website has updated its old ratings to five-star ratings so they are simply using what's there. But I am wondering whether we should keep to the original rating. For example, Usher's 8701 now shows as four stars out of five [6] but both the magazine and the early version of the website used 8/10 [7].

I've noticed print/online discrepancies elsewhere. The old 1960s and 1970s reviews on Rolling Stone's website used to be dated one day different to the print version for some reason, but the website seems to have corrected this now (although it might mean a lot of album articles might need changing). And the print version of the 2006 The Times article "Oasis album voted greatest of all time" [8] has an entirely different title, "Definitely the greatest album (maybe)", in the newspaper, and was also published the day after the online version, on 2 June 2006.

In the grand scheme of things this doesn't matter very much - the important thing is to be be to access the information to verify it - but I wondered if other editors had opinions on this. Richard3120 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, as long as they're the same value, I don't see why it matters. 4/5, 8/10, or 208/260 all equate to the same value - 80%. But I've gotten into some bizarre arguments with people on this website over this, ("No no, the album didn't get a 4/5 score, it got 4 stars out of 5!") so who knows if people will agree with me here, even if the math is basic. Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I prefer using the original scales as much as possible, especially if the citation references the original. I've changed old Spin ratings--magazine ones--from stars to numbers, because that's how the magazine printed them. But a larger point is brought up: it seems as if more editors don't believe ratings--or anything--if the citations aren't url links ... but maybe that's been an issue since 2001 ... Caro7200 (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Tribute albumsEdit

There is a suggestion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Category:Laura Nyro tribute albums that Category:Tribute albums should be fully split by original artist. Please comment there. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Music ratingsEdit

Page watchers may be interested in Template talk:Music ratings#Merged. Izno (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

LP track listing numberingsEdit

Should albums released during the LP era that are divided into sides have the track listing start at 1 on each side? There's this very lengthy discussion from three years ago, but it doesn't appear that any consensus was reached. The MOS currently only states that releases with multiple DISCS should start the numbering at 1 for each new disc. (See "Multiple discs" section.) I ask because I have recently seen a few albums that continue the consecutive numbering system all the way through both sides and never know if I should change it (my inclination) or just leave it be. Thoughts? —The Keymaster (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The MOS mentions LPs too. For albums that were originally released on multiple discs, either CD or vinyl, the track numberings should start at 1 for each disc, like this, as opposed to continuous numbering, like this. Incorrectly making all the numbers consecutive is for some reason something IP editors love to do, so it is helpful if you can fix it when you see it. Tkbrett (✉) 14:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Different sides of a single disc should be numbered the same way for consistency's sake. QuietHere (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
It's probably best for each side to start with 1, but I've never thought it absolutely necessary to divide any album into sides (aside from Rick Wakeman albums, maybe ;))--the LP era never went away, although it was fallow in the mid-'80s to early '90s or whatever. There may be plenty of indie/metal/alternative/hip hop albums that originally came out on vinyl but where the article has the standard track listing. Vitalogy originally came out on vinyl... Caro7200 (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps "originally" should be substituted for "primarily". If an album was originally on vinyl but sold far better on CD, wouldn't it make sense for our articles to reflect the version more people would be familiar with? QuietHere (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I've tended to stick with "sides" in the vinyl era (before around 1984/1985) and a single continuous numbering after that when CDs and then digital formats were prevalent. I think the reason some editors make the numbers consecutive, even when starting the second side of an album, is because every album these days is reissued with bonus tracks, and usually only on CD. So you get tracks 1-5 on side A, 1-5 on side B, and then track 11 in the bonus tracks section, which looks weird. Richard3120 (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I do it roughly the same way you're describing, Richard3120. I consider albums from the "vinyl era" to be anything before about 1988, and thus will use sides in the track listing. After 1988, I consider the album part of the CD or digital era, where the numbering can just be continuous. The reason I use 1988 as the dividing line is because that's the year when CD sales officially overtook vinyl sales. (See [[9]].) The only problem is I'm kind of on the fence for releases actually from 1988. I could go either way on that.
I can already hear some argue: "well, LPs sales have now eclipsed CDs again, so does that imply we should somehow go back to splitting album releases into sides?"
Well, no. Digital streaming and downloading is by far the most prevalent means of music listening at the moment, so physical formats have become a niche thing. (I say this as someone who still collects CDs and LPs regularly. I'm just being realistic.) The Keymaster (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh, and as for the bonus tracks thing...I actually do it that way (i.e. 1-5, 1-5, track 11, etc.). I feel like if you denote that the proper track listing is the "original LP" and then denote the "CD bonus tracks," it makes that weird numbering system clearer. The Keymaster (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but I took that to mean each disc—as in, say, each LP of a two LP set—rather than anything to do with LP sides. I 100% agree with you on the numbering, though. The Keymaster (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The numbering should be continuous no matter the format. If the sixth song is "Side C, track 2" or "Disc 2, track 1" or just part of an indefinite number of digital tracks, it's still the sixth track. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Can we all come to a consensus on this and potentially add it to the MOS to prevent further confusion?
My vote is to keep the track listing as originally released (numbered as per sides), but I'm happy to do whatever as long as we reach a firm decision on it. I'm tired of seeing articles that do it both ways. The Keymaster (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
But how it's originally released itself will be very different for many albums. Some albums come out in multiple formats at once and these don't always align to sides, etc. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 07:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
That's why the general rule of thumb I use is by era: pre-1988, LP style. Post-1988 (where CD became dominant format), CD/digital style. The Keymaster (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Which is arbitrary and confusing and ultimately irrelevant; it will also introduce plenty more confusion. Just having one standard that is always applied will make it simple. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 07:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, that's ultimately my goal here: to come up with a standard one way or the other that's clearly delineated in the MOS, instead of everyone just doing it however they choose. The Keymaster (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
On that note, the only thing the MOS says on this is that albums released in the vinyl era should be divided into sides. "Albums originally released primarily on vinyl or cassette should similarly list the tracks of each side separately under sub-headings named 'Side one' and 'Side two'." No instructions on track numbering. The Keymaster (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I would follow the style of the original release. Consistency across Wikipedia should not be a goal when the original styles are so varied. Most LP vinyl albums start numbering at 1 on side A and restart at 1 on side B, but not all. I remember a few that used sequential numbering, and more than a few that pointedly did not number the songs at all. Examples of the latter style are Neil Diamond's 1971 and '72 albums Stones[10] and Moods. For albums like these, we could choose to list the songs with no numbers (perhaps add bullets?), or we could throw up our hands and go with sequential numbering. Binksternet (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
[Responding to ping] Except for unusual cases, I think the original widespread release should be used. For most LPs, this would be starting at 1 for each side. Changing the designations to reflect a new format seems like busy work without any real benefit. Other details that usually appear in track listings, such as durations and writers, should also use the original. Some IPs have taken it upon themselves to change the details to reflect whatever their preferred release uses. This may lead to arguments over which edition is the more "correct" and make the article appear unstable. I wonder if which release to use is being taken into consideration for the proposed use of Wikidata for tracklist tables. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ojorojo Yes, that's exactly how I do it: I always go by the original release, including the credits. If there are additional credits that weren't included in the original release but showed up in a reissue or were mentioned somewhere else, I source those additional credits.
@Binksternet Interesting twist there. Hadn't thought about LP releases that don't include any numbering at all, although there were quite a few. However, since the MOS says that LPs should always be broken into sides, if we're using the standard system of preceding each track by the pound sign, it defaults to numbering them (and starting from 1 on each side) anyway. The Keymaster (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Should I draft amended language for the MOS that clarifies this issue? It seems like most here are generally on the same page with this.
Personally, I also think the material on side breaks should be moved into its own sub-section concerning LP releases, instead of being thrown into the "Multiple discs" sub-section. The Keymaster (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying to come up with the easiest way to amend the MOS without having to create a new sub-heading. Here is the MOS text as it now stands:
If the album was released primarily on CD and spans multiple discs, these should be listed separately under sub-headings named "Disc one", "Disc two" and so on. Albums originally released primarily on vinyl or cassette should similarly list the tracks of each side separately under sub-headings named "Side one" and "Side two". For albums that were originally released on multiple discs, either CD or vinyl, the track numberings should start at 1 for each disc...
Why don't we just change the sub-heading from "Multiple discs" to "Releases with multiple discs/sides" (which probably should have been done in the first place) and modify the text of the last sentence thusly:
In both instances, the track numberings should start at 1 for each disc or side...
If we want to include language on how to determine when to use the LP format, that's a little trickier, but I can give it a shot. Most of the sources I've encountered say that while the CD had eclipsed the LP by 1989, it didn't become the dominant format until 1991, when it finally overtook cassette. While I lived through the entirety of the '80s, I actually didn't remember that cassettes ever outsold CDs, but it makes sense.—The Keymaster (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I would rather have wiggle room in the wording, for instance to be able to follow the original product numbering style whatever it is. Local consensus should be allowed to override any proposed "consistency" measures. Binksternet (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Can you give an example of a release where the numbering wouldn't follow the standard of starting at 1 for each disc/side? Or are you referring to your earlier example of releases that had no numbering at all?
Would something like this suffice?
In both instances, the tracks should be numbered and/or listed as per the original format... The Keymaster (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
That should do it. Maybe it's worth mentioning in the style essay (not actually a MOS) that track listings for albums that don't use typical numbering might not be able to use Template:Track listing. The double album Tales from Topographic Oceans has one song per side and are not numbered, but there doesn't seem to be a way to enter a title without a number (title1 = etc.). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh wow, that table looks ridiculous. I wonder if in that instance it may be best to just format the track listing as a simple list without the template. The listing isn't overly complicated anyway. Two of the four tracks even have the same writers.
Should we make any kind of provisions for albums with no track numbering at all?
On a side note, I was surprised to discover recently that the article for The Dark Side of the Moon (one of the most high profile releases I can think of) uses the continuous numbering scheme. Interestingly, the [original UK release] has each track lettered as opposed to numbered, in the manner of a medley, which actually makes a lot of sense. Meanwhile, the [U.S. release] has no numbering at all. The Keymaster (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and simplified the track listing for Tales from Topographic Oceans. Hopefully there won't be an uproar. The Keymaster (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ojorojo Unsurprisingly, my simplifying of that track listing for Tales from Topographic Oceans was changed. The editor cited MOS:RETAIN, but the thing is the original style on that page was a simple list, so that's the style that probably should have been retained all along. Funnily enough, this editor tried to make the same edit I did back in November only to have someone revert them. I think this is yet another thing the MOS should be clearer on, frankly. The Keymaster (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, my full proposal for changing the text at WP:TRACKLISTING:
Change sub-heading of "Multiple discs" to "Releases with multiple discs/sides."
Modify sentence that begins For albums that were originally released on multiple discs... to In all instances, the tracks should be numbered and/or listed to reflect the predominant format of the original release.
As per Ojorojo's suggestion, add text in Style and form section about forced template numbering. I've also added a bit of clarity on what might constitute a "more complicated situation," as well as info about using multiple templates. In more complicated situations (releases with a wide variety of writers/producers, compilations culled from multiple sources, etc.), a table or the Track listing template may be a better choice. ... Note, however, that the template forces a numbering system. In the case of multi-sided/multi-disc releases, a new template may be used for each individual side or disc, if applicable.
What does everyone think? I'd like to try and get some kind of consensus before I edit.
The Keymaster (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I support, but maybe clarify the sentence "Note, however, that the template forces a numbering system, so tracks originally listed as "A","B", etc., or with other or no designations will not appear as such when using the template." It may be obvious to some, but others may not see the significance. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I somewhat oppose, although I acknowledge that policies are often needed to avoid edit warring. My opinion is that it's not necessary to divide any album into sides, and that there are already hundreds--more?--of album articles where track listings are formatted "incorrectly". Or maybe it's more beneficial for themed or concept albums, rather than just albums in a particular date range. Caro7200 (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good. I have no problem adding that sentence to the text. The Keymaster (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey folks. This is a good discussion. So far I agree with what I'm understanding to be the main suggestions here, for improvements to WP:ALBUMSTYLE, the album article style guide. (1) In general track listing numbering should follow that of the original release. (2) For albums originally released as LPs this usually, but not always, would have the track numbers starting at 1 on each side. (3) When using the Track Listing template editors might therefore want to use multiple templates to make the numbering restart at 1. (4) Numbering of bonus tracks should follow that of the album, preferably with explanatory notes for situations such as the album being originally released on LP and then getting bonus tracks on the CD. Mudwater (Talk) 10:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's an excellent summation of all the suggestions thus far. I'm contemplating starting an RFC for this, so we can get something concrete nailed down. The Keymaster (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The {{WPALBUM}} template includes assessment parameters for both quality and importance. Since literally 99% of album-related articles will be low importance and it's hard to really even think of which album articles are more "important" than others (except maybe the article album itself), I think removing it would be wise and reduce overhead. Thoughts on this? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 22:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Massively support this. There's no criteria for importance, or if there is its not well known. It's also highly subjective. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the importance scale makes it clear enough what the requirements are for that parameter. I don't think it's self-defeating that the majority of album-related articles, I think that's just a feature. QuietHere (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps but its burdensome admin - the value of time versus payoff isn't worth it IMO >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I mean, if 99% of albums are just gonna be rated low then I don't suspect it's that intense a burden. Unless there's a history of it causing trouble you can point to then I don't see the issue. QuietHere (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to throw in an addendum to my comments here just to say that I'm really not bothered either way about keeping the parameter. I'm not entirely clear on what it does that isn't fairly self-explanatory by any given subject. I just don't see it as harmful in the way koavf seems to suggest. If it is kept, however, I do think the scale could use some adjustment. The complete lack of mention of albums which have won/been nominated for major awards seems like a glaring omission to me. QuietHere (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I actually think the criteria are pretty arbitrary and muddled. I really don't think that Communique is a "medium-importance" album article. If anything, I could see how a handful of articles about what albums are (e.g. concept album or record producer) are fundamental for understanding as well as a few of the most well-known, best selling, and critically-acclaimed albums themselves, but the gradation seems unnecessary. For that matter, the criteria state that top-priority articles are good candidates for bringing to featured status, but of course, in practice, fairly "unimportant" albums like Lions (album) and Illinois (album) are featured, whereas double album is C-class and I think that most of us editing album articles will just continue to edit on albums that interest us. To take recent things I've done, I made Winter Sequence recently because it was an interesting thing I learned about and we had nothing here and I made Angel in the Dark and Llegó Navidad because they were gaps in important artists' discographies here, but I don't know that any of these are particularly "important". For that matter, releases by particularly popular artists like Nicki Minaj will get some extensive editing and thorough articles, but (to use another example of an article I made), is Kamikaze (Eminem album) really even "mid-level" important? I don't think so. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
See, under the current criteria, I would say that Communiqué very much is a mid-importance album... how else would you distinguish between a high-charting album in several counties by an internationally-famous band, and a semi-obscure non-charting indie release? But I guess that's the point you are making - it's so subjective, almost no album would ever be classified as mid-importance, and therefore importance ratings become worthless if everything is either "high" or "low". It's also dependent on the country you view it from - for example, The Lexicon of Love almost universally features in greatest ever album lists in the UK, but outside that country, few editors will be aware of it.
For what it's worth, I've always considered the albums in the major "all time" lists (RS 500 Albums, NME 500 Albums, 1001 Albums You Must Hear), plus some obvious international best-sellers (Coldplay, Rihanna, Adele), as top/high importance... because of repetition I estimate this gives around 1200 to 1500 albums at these levels. Then high-charting in multiple countries would be mid-level, and the rest would be low-importance. But I really don't mind if the consensus is to do away with the importance levels altogether... WikiProject Songs has managed fine for several years without complaints. Richard3120 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have been in this project for more than 10 years, and have observed that the Assessment stats table has pretty much always indicated that there are tens of thousands of album articles in which the current Importance rating is ???. I like to nibble away at those regularly by adding my own Importance assessment (I did ten just today), and I suspect that our esteemed colleague Richard3120 does the same. But with tens of thousands of needed actions and just a few people interested in chipping away at them, it seems like a losing numerical battle. So perhaps the "Importance" of an album is not really so "important" to Wikipedia's more casual editors and readers. Personally, I think it's a useful parameter, maybe with a few inconsistencies in how it is defined, but I am probably an outlier. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
To sum up: I would have no dispute with an administrative action to remove the "Importance" parameter if Justin/Koavf wants to move in that direction. It's a nice thing to have but creates an insurmountable workload, and that energy is better used elsewhere. I honestly don't think too many people would miss it, and those who do would soon get over it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: I will always support WikiProjects removing the importance status, and more WikiProjects have started to remove it altogether. It works for small WPs (Beyoncé for example has no more than 400 of them and all of them are organized according to the project's needs. The importance scale might be subjective even there, but it is based on how popular the subject is in relation to the singer). Our sister project Songs, for example, has not had an importance scale and the project works well. LGBT simply reworked the top priority to Core topics. The given importance scale parameters were created like 15 years ago when the project required some sort of organization and it no longer works for the current needs of Wikipedia and its readers. (CC) Tbhotch 21:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I also have no problem with the removal of or ending the importance rating. I guess someone would have to come up with a rationale on what value it adds to the project to keep it in order to change my mind. The class ratings, albeit somewhat just as subjective in their assessments, at least give editors options of what articles they might to work on or provide examples of what they have to shoot towards in achieving a certain level of quality. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support the removal of the Importance parameter from the {{WikiProject Albums}} template. I don't think it's adding much value at this point. Articles about very well-known or influential albums tend to be in pretty good shape anyway. And as others have said, 99% of the assessed articles are tagged as low importance, which is not very helpful. Mudwater (Talk) 10:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I support the removal of importance rankings as well. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be remove. I'll set a reminder on my calendar for two weeks from now and if nothing has changed, I'll remove it. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 14:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. "P.S." On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment page there's a table of album articles by quality and importance. If I'm doing the math right, almost 95% of album articles are rated as low importance -- including 46 Featured articles and 807 Good articles. Mudwater (Talk) 01:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the reason why almost all albums are rated as low-importance is because without any clear guidance as to what makes an album high- or mid-importance, most editors default to low to avoid any accusations of favoritism. Richard3120 (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I have gotten into a few edit hubbubs (not quite edit wars) on Talk pages with people who insisted that their personal favorite album was "Top" or "High" importance, missing the point that the album needs to influence someone other than themselves. But that also indicates the poor definitions as noted by RIchard3120 above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support per WP:Systemic bias. An album's importance can be varies country-by-country. An album that's considered essential in the UK may not necessary be so in the US. Erick (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Jagger/Richards or separate?Edit

Random thought that just occurred to me. I was looking at ReWiggled's track list and noticed that their cover of "She's a Rainbow" is credited as being written by M. Jagger and K. Richards. All well and good. But then it hit me that when I made the track list for Draft:Stoned Cold Country, I wrote the credit as "All tracks are written by Jagger/Richards", with that link going to a page about the writing partnership between the two. A similar page also exists at Lennon–McCartney for those Beatley fellows, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are even more than that (such as my favorite songwriting duo Kirk/Spock). So now I'm looking at these and wondering if it would be correct to write it the way I did in my draft, or should I link them separately like it's done on ReWiggled and presumably most other pages. Is there something in the MoS that I've forgotten about/haven't seen which answers this? Should there be a strict preference, or is either fine? QuietHere (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Another thing worth mentioning is that Keith Richards was known as Keith Richard (no s) from 1963–1978, so if you look at any LP or 7" from that period, the songs are credited as "Jagger, Richard". I made this clear when writing the GA for "Mother's Little Helper" and added a note at Aftermath, but plenty of other articles just credit songs to "Jagger–Richards" without mentioning the name change, like the FA for "Paint It Black". I think it makes more sense to provide the original credit and not the name change; MOS:PLACE has a similar standard of not naming things anachronistically. Tkbrett (✉) 15:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Album quality assessments taskEdit

Ten years ago I began the task of assessing album articles for quality (from stub-class to B-class). At the time there were over 40,000 articles that required assessments. Add in the thousands of new articles created during that ten-year time frame, and we're probably looking at over 50,000 album articles that needed to be assessed for this Project. Well, with thanks to the work of countless others who have come and gone (in particular, Rfl0216 and Richard3120), that number is now under 1,000. With a little more help, this can be completed in a couple more weeks (although it will never be truly done) just by reviewing what remains in the unassessed album articles category. It may be a thankless task, but I've enjoyed doing this because it has exposed me to so much I wouldn't have been aware of otherwise (the albums, the music, the musicians). Of course, it also makes me aware of all the hard work so many of you are doing to add to this encyclopedia. It's been a pleasure reading and learning from your contributions. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Your work in categorizing and assessing is very much appreciated, Star. I tend to not be the first person to rate articles that I created, but I realize that there is no rule against this. Do you think it would be better if I started rating articles that I create or leave that to someone else? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 18:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I really appreciate the work of you three, especially when I was starting multiple album articles a week. I never messed with the talk pages, as I knew that another set of eyes would soon be reviewing things and correcting style errors, typos, etc. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)--I agree with Justin, I tended to shy away from the talk pages for those reasons as well. Caro7200 (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
That's entirely up to you.. Tagging the talk page with the Project banner would be enough for me. Keep up the great work, both of you. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I absolutely second this, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars... I've found out about so many artists from so many other genres that I never knew about during my article tagging, even if it takes a lot of time. And Caro7200. I'm always happy to see when new articles have been created by you, because I know they will be properly researched and sourced, and well written... very little copyediting to do! Richard3120 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

New templateEdit

I have recently created {{Track listing total length}}, which may be helpful in templates such as {{Track listing}}. Let me know if there's any questions or concerns. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to point out that because individual track times are rounded up or down to the neatest second, the actual overall length may be one or two seconds out from the calculated length, and may have to be manually adjusted anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summaryEdit

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Kept to
(overall 0.62)
Remaining to review
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProjectEdit

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk.

My apologies for not sorting this list down; please feel free to remove those that aren't actually applicable to this WP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?)
  2. Angel of Death (Slayer song)
  3. Audioslave
  4. Be Here Now (album)
  5. Blood Sugar Sex Magik
  6. Body Count (album)
  7. By the Way
  8. Christ Illusion
  9. Concerto delle donne
  10. Dookie
  11. Doolittle (album)
  12. Dream Days at the Hotel Existence
  13. Dungeons & Dragons (album)
  14. Eyes of the Insane
  15. Fightin' Texas Aggie Band
  16. Freak Out!
  17. Fuck the Millennium
  18. God Hates Us All
  19. Godsmack
  20. Hey Baby (No Doubt song)
  21. Hey Jude
  22. Jihad (song)
  23. Joey Santiago
  24. Leo Ornstein
  25. Love. Angel. Music. Baby.
  26. Loveless (album)
  27. Mariah Carey
  28. Nick Drake
  29. One Hot Minute
  30. Pearl Jam
  31. Pinkerton (album)
  32. Powderfinger
  33. Reign in Blood
  34. Rock Steady (album)
  35. Sex Pistols
  36. Sky Blue Sky
  37. Smells Like Teen Spirit
  38. Sonatas and Interludes
  39. South of Heaven
  40. Stereolab
  41. Still Reigning
  42. Supernature (Goldfrapp album)
  43. Surfer Rosa
  44. Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)
  45. The Long and Winding Road
  46. The Smashing Pumpkins
  47. The World Is Not Enough (song)
  48. Thespis (opera)
  49. Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song)
  50. Tool (band)
  51. Tōru Takemitsu
  52. Uncle Tupelo
  53. What You Waiting For?
  54. Wilco
Struck out songs and bands/musicians from the above list. Richard3120 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Yor, the Hunter from the Future (soundtrack)Edit

Yor, the Hunter from the Future (soundtrack) has been around for along time and it seems to have been unsourced since created. If you Google the title, you'll get some hits; however, nothing seems to resemble any of the criteria specified in WP:NALBUM. The article about the film Yor, the Hunter from the Future is better developed and it seems that content found in the soundtrack album could be merged into the film's article, but it would still be unsourced so to speak. The album cover would need to go per WP:FILMSCORE and WP:NFC#cite_note-3, but maybe some of the text content could be incorporated into a new "Soundtrack" section added to the article about the film. Does any think such a thing would be acceptable or worth the effort, or does this soundtrack article need to go to AfD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I suspect the result of an AfD on that article would just suggest the merger anyway. I at least know that my instinct would be to vote for a merger. May as well be bold and do it yourself. I don't see anything wrong with it being in there. Worth mentioning that the music from the film was nominated for two Golden Raspberry Awards in 1984, something the soundtrack article doesn't bring up. QuietHere (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)