Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Requested move at Talk:When the Pawn...#Requested move 11 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:When the Pawn...#Requested move 11 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Dispute at Talk:Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran

There is a discussion at Talk:Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran that needs opinions regarding an edit war based on the singles in the infobox for the article. The discussion can be found at the article's talk page here. Thanks. HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:And Here She Is ... Ann-Margret#Requested move 7 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:And Here She Is ... Ann-Margret#Requested move 7 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Albums by recording location container cats

I've noticed that the subcategories of Category:Albums by recording location are inconsistently labeled as {{container cat}}s, e.g. Category:Live albums recorded in Australia and Category:Live albums recorded in Sydney both are while Category:Live albums recorded in Argentina and Category:Live albums recorded in Buenos Aires are not. Is there a reason for this discrepancy? Should they remain as such? Personally, I think album articles are already noticeably limited in the number of available categories they can be placed in compared to most other article types (most of the album articles I've created have 3-7), and it doesn't appear like it would hurt to open those up. I've been thinking recently about what additional album categories could be created because of this, and I think this could be a good place to start. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

An album recorded in a certain city is not defining and should be a container but at a certain venue or studio is defining and should contain articles directly. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

So you think the cats I mentioned that aren't labeled should be? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

100%. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Koavf on how the categorization is currently applied. However, I always found it odd that Category:Albums recorded at Abbey Road Studios was deleted at CfD as what could be considered one of the more defining studios at which an album could be recorded, yet the larger scheme continues. For example, I don't think an album being recorded at Capitol Studios or A&M Studios (or other corporate studio locations) are at all defining to the albums that were recorded there. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that one I don't get either. I almost recreated it the other day but after seeing the discussions I changed my mind, but I would not be opposed to it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

About WP:FUTUREALBUM

This section of the guideline (Wikipedia:Notability (music) § Future material) was boldly rewritten in August 2023 by Doomsdayer520. He opened this discussion on this WikiProject's talk page after making the changes. I disagree with the change to the guideline as it places several unnecessary conditions (such as a tracklist and cover art) on top of the notability requirements for other albums, and is one of the very few guidelines to exceed the requirements of the general notability guideline. The only similar guideline is the one for unreleased films, which requires the project to have begun principal photography. This is not comparable to the burden currently placed on unreleased albums; just in the last two weeks, I've dealt with multiple articles on albums that had plentiful significant coverage in sources, singles released in promotion, and pre-orders open, but had to be kept in draftspace due to the lack of tracklists.

I propose to rewrite this section without the stringent additional requirements or revert to its previous version. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with reverting to the prior version as I think Doomsdayer's original point about having the policies separate is still a good one. However, I do agree that the requirements Doomsdayer laid forth are overly restrictive and also not how I've ever seen upcoming album articles handled. Calling an album non-notable just because it doesn't have released cover art yet makes no sense to me. Hell, there are multiple untitled album articles currently in Category:Upcoming albums (Paris Hilton, Nas/DJ Premier, Anuel AA and Ozuna, Megan Thee Stallion, and Playboi Carti) about which I have seen no objections, and given the amount of coverage they all have, I wouldn't object to them either. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Responses from the bold:

• I did not make up the requirements for cover art and a track list in 2023. Those had been sitting in the essay WP:HAMMER for at least 15 years, and even though that is an essay, it has often been cited in unreleased album AfDs.
• Before I modified the policy it mixed up multiple types of albums into one big rule -- those being near-future albums (the main point here), albums that had been started by the musician but never completed, and those that had been completed but never released. Those were all clumped into one single policy requirement called "unreleased albums" and the result was lots of misguided album AfDs. As proof of how rickety and inflexible the policy statement was, the 2008 Guns n' Roses album was still being used as an example for all of the above.
• The previous version of the policy jumbled up different aspects of WP:CRYSTAL and the aforementioned WP:HAMMER incoherently, which I endeavored to straighten out.
• I did something bold because the policy had been built by many people with bits and pieces over many years to the point of incoherence. I have no problem with anyone else doing something bold, as long as that bold move looks forward. Reverting to the version from before my update would simply restore errors that had been there for years and years because nobody else fixed them. Fix again if you like, but it's not 2008 anymore.
• Despite the wall of text that we have built so far, it appears that the only real objection above is the call for cover art before a near-future album is considered notable. Why not just change that? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I don't necessarily feel that you were wrong to rewrite the guideline, I simply disagree with some of the changes. I understand that most of them were constructive, which is why I recommended an amendment of the guideline before a revert. My objection is not just about the cover art, but to all of the additional requirements placed in this guideline. The notability of upcoming albums can be determined in exactly the same way as we do for any other album: checking for significant coverage in reliable sources. Whether or not the artist or record label has confirmed "critical information" is of no relevance to whether the subject deserves an encyclopedic article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

In that case it looks like the only major objection is with the phrase "This must include the title, cover image, release date..." Perhaps the answer is to change must to something like should or preferably as long as it's all in reliable sources. By the way, I believe "must" was in the guideline before I expanded it, but I probably added the italics. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking more towards the removal of the first paragraph in its entirety and replacing it with standard notability language similar to the general notability guideline or criterion 1 of § Recordings. As I mentioned earlier, whether or not the artist or label have confirmed any information is irrelevant when determining the subject's notability. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "critical information" is a nonviable term, so no big loss. But we still need something about what qualities make a near-future album a real thing and not just fan trivia. Also, go back to the history in August 2023, and you will find that my point then was that there were too many misguided deletion nominations for near-future albums for which there was info found in reliable sources. That was because of the previously vague policy allusions to WP:CRYSTAL and the like, and clarification was an improvement no matter how you sling it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is already covered by the requirement for reliable sources, as I think we can trust established publications not to publish vapid speculation of the kind that you'd see on a fan site. Self-published sources are already discounted from any notability considerations, and no argument of a blog or fan site demonstrating notability would be taken seriously at AfD. Also, the language used in the third paragraph ("consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation ... is a violation of Wikipedia's crystal ball rule") is fine by me; I don't intend to alter that part. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is probably the best summary of my thoughts as well. The first criteria of NALBUM is that the article meets GNG; why not let that be the standard? If we've got substantial coverage coming in from multiple reliable sources then why should anything else matter so much? And again, in my experience, this is how these articles have been handled consistently anyway. I've seen upcoming albums redirected/draftified for lack of coverage, but not for any other reason, and I can't imagine only saying "This has no announced tracklist/cover art" would go over that well in an AfD. A change in specific language might be helpful, but I still think it's focusing on the wrong thing. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Since a day has gone by and there seems to be a rough consensus for this change, I went ahead and made this edit to the section. I welcome any suggestions for copyediting or further clarification. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles assessment table

So now that we have taken out the "importance" parameter (which I agree with) from this table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Statistics, does anyone know if there is any way of modifying the table so that we only see the quality assessment in a single column, similar to that at WP:SONGS? It would be a lot better as the current table is a mess with all the red links. Richard3120 (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This is done by a bot and when we decided years ago to remove the importance feature, I made a request to change the bot's output and no one answered. :/ So as of now I think we're stuck. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf: and everyone else – I had a word, and I think we're sorted now. :-) Richard3120 (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

<3 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Who Killed...... The Zutons?#Requested move 8 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Who Killed...... The Zutons?#Requested move 8 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 20:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)