Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 68

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70→Archive 75

Categories violate WP:SUBCAT

There seems to be a massive problem, undetected for years, with the placement of complete band album categories into genre categories. As an example, Category:Apollo Sunshine albums is placed in no less than 7 genre categories, as if all 3 albums belong to all 7 categories. The albums are all described as "Indie rock" only, so the cats are not only at the wrong place (belong at album level, not at "all albums" level) but are unsourced WP:OR. This is a common issue, earlier today I removed 2 cats from Category:10,000 Maniacs albums[1] as being not correct for the group of albums (though one or two individual albums may match those genres).

Take Category:Tori Amos albums: these are all "alternative rock" and "chamber pop" and "electronica" and "baroque pop"? Category:LCD Soundsystem albums all belong to the same 9 genres???

This isn't helping readers, this is just dumping everything together and leave the exercise of which album actually belongs to which genre to the reader. Can some instruction be given that albums by genre categories belong at the individual album level, and not at the complete output of an artist level (preferably never, but certainly not for artists who worked in multiple genres across their career). Fram (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. For context, this came up when Fram removed genre categories from Category:Bob Dylan albums that had been there for almost 20 years with no previous discussion. Categories like Category:Folk rock albums by American artists are not only intended for just the individual articles on those albums, but also navigating by artist. It is perfectly appropriate to categorize by a kind of typical or expected genre. To use an example (pardon the language, this is just the best one I can think of): Category:Anal Cunt albums is subcategorized under Category:Grindcore albums by American artists, a genre of music that they virtually defined. They do have one one-off soft-rock album, Picnic of Love. Would it aid in navigation if you removed Category:Anal Cunt albums from Category:Grindcore albums by American artists and instead added in all of the individual album articles that aren't this single soft rock album? No, it would not: it would make these genre/nationality categories very bloated and more difficult to navigate and then make it harder to find artists that typify those genres. Bob Dylan can reasonably be categorized as a folk rock musician, even if he has one or two albums that are more blues or country-based (tho those are still roots-based rock). It would not make things easier for readers to add the dozens and dozens of studio, compilation, and live albums individually to Category:Folk rock albums by American artists. It would help to have a single entry that is the category of his albums and reserve Category:Folk rock albums by American artists for the more rare folk rock departure made by an American artist who plays in that genre occasionally or as a one-off. User:Fram, will you please revert yourself on Category:Bob Dylan albums to the version that was more-or-less stable for decades and that (by your own post) represents standard practice across tens of thousands of categories? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
No. Old errors are still errors. Why would we categorise Category:Bob Dylan albums as a subcat of Category:Pop rock albums by American artists (where it was in your version)? Many of the albums in the Dylan cat are not pop rock albums, but what we do (contrary to our categorisation policies, and contrary to habits in non-music cats) is just tell the reader "tough luck, some of these albums are pop rock, but we won't tell you which ones". How is this defensible? Fram (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Consensus during a 2019 RfC was against categorizing artists by genre. However, further discussion on implementing it for albums received no response. A similar attempt at WT:SONG stalled. As an interim measure, perhaps an approach similar to that for SONG may be used: "Category:<Artist name> albums" should only be placed in "Category:<genre> albums" if a majority of the artist's albums are described as being in that genre. This would eliminate most of the marginal categories for an artist's albums and reduce some of the problems being discussed. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I had forgotten that RfC even though I participated... So basically, it has already been decided that artists shouldn't be categorized by genre: categorizing the collective "albums by the artist" by genre seems like a very dubious endrun around that RfC (individual albums, ok, but how it is done here is just the same as categorizing the artist by genre surely?). I wonder if a bot run to remove all subcats from "albums by genre" cats would be a possibility, to avoid having Category:M People albums as a subcat of Category:Soul albums by English artists. Fram (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I shared a link to the RfC below, before reading the rest of this section. The current structure is terrible. For example, Category:Lady Gaga albums is filed under Category:Dance-pop albums by American artists, Category:Electropop albums, Category:Pop rock albums by American artists, and Category:Synth-pop albums by American artists, even though Love for Sale is none of these genres. Love for Sale should be filed under a Jazz album category. I would strongly support only placing articles in album categories when sources specifically verify genres. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
If one of the genres is wrong, remove it. That's an easy problem to solve. You did not address what I wrote above which is that there will be a flurry of tens of thousands of articles add to categories, making the categories themselves much harder to navigate. Do you think this is not an issue? Note that the RfC explicitly concluded "Characterizing albums or songs by genre was not the issue and does not appear to be controversial". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
But you aren't categorizing albums, you are categorizing subcats with often lots of albums, which often individually wouldn't belong in the henre cat. Feel free to categorize individual songs or albums this way, but don't put the whole output of artists in such cats, as it will in way too many cases incorrect album/genre combinations, like in the Bob Dylan case. "If one of the genres is wrong, remove it. That's an easy problem to solve." Apparently not, as you are ready to revert such changes. Fram (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Precisely! I respect koavf's contributions to Wikipedia so much, but I don't understand the resistance to categorizing albums differently. The current structure is clearly problematic. I had kind of given up trying to create change in this area, but I'm glad to see the issue brought up again. Wikipedia can do better here! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
"I don't understand the resistance to categorizing albums differently" because categories will be flooded with tens of thousands of individual entries, making navigation much, much harder for readers. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
There are other ways to subcategorize. We could go with Category:2000s jazz albums by American artists. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
And quadruple intersections will make it more difficult to navigate but in a different way. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Koavf Can you say more about this? I'd like to have a better understanding of your concern. Can you explain why a category like Category:2000s jazz albums by American artists is problematic? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it will be harder to find individual albums and will create hundreds (maybe thousands) of extremely niche sub-sub-sub-categories that intersect decade, genre, and artist nationality, like Category:1990s metlacore albums by Canadian artists and Category:1940s jazz albums by Spanish artists. That will not make navigating easier, but much harder. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
We would only create categories like those if helpful and necessary. You're arguing against a category restructure by proposing super niche subcategories which may never be appropriate, but that doesn't mean the current system is good. There must be better ways to categorize album articles than by grouping all works by an artist by genre. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question and I'm happy to have Category:Folk rock albums by American artists be the only one for Bob Dylan, but you are refusing to revert after about 20 years of it being categorized by genre. Please answer the question I have asked you about the issue I have brought up twice now. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
What does it matter that our policies have been disregarded for so long, or that the RfC has been disregarded as well? The "wrong" cats were there for 20 years as well, so that's hardly an argument to keep the one you prefer. I see no issue with having "album by genre" cats at the album level, where they belong. At least there they should be correct, the cat can be matched to the genre described in the article / infobox, and the editors of the articles will be able to maintain and discuss this. Having this at the subcat level means that this is hidden from most editors, which is probably why it persisted for so long (coupled with the resistance of the one major proponent of this system probably). Anyway, perhaps you can answer the question: how does the current system not violate WP:SUBCAT? Fram (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
You are wrong and at this point acting in bad faith. "that the RfC has been disregarded as well" as you well know, the RfC explicitly concluded "Characterizing albums or songs by genre was not the issue and does not appear to be controversial". Your question is not how the burden of proof works: I don't need to prove it doesn't, you need to prove that it does. That said, as WP:SUBCAT explicitly says "ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also". Someone would reasonably assume that Bob Dylan albums are generally folk rock, even if one or two of them out of sixty-some isn't. If anything, you've just proven my point. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
No bad faith involved. You were defending all of these because it always had been like that, reverting the WP:SUBCAT violating ones back in. The method you support is not categorizing albums by genre, it is categorizing artists by genre through the backdoor of applying it to all of their output indiscriminately, which puts e.g. all Category:Pink (singer) albums in the cat "teen pop". Wherever you look, you encounter such issues with this whole system. Things like this shouldn't have happened. Fram (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fram, you might be interested in this discussion. I've long hated how Wikipedia categorizes all works by an artist by genre. This discussion concluded that " There is a clear consensus that artists should not be characterized by genre, at least not routinely." Unfortunately, I still see incorrect categorizing by genre all the time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
If there are incorrect instances, then those can be fixed, but is it somehow unfair or unreasonable to put (e.g.) Category:John Coltrane albums under Category:Jazz albums by American artists? Or Category:AC/DC albums under Category:Hard rock albums by Australian artists? Everyone agrees that things shouldn't be incorrect, that is by definition non-controversial. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia articles should only display genre categories when sources specifically confirm. Otherwise, we are showing inaccurate information, plain and simple. If all of the John Coltrane entries are sourced as jazz, then sure Category:Jazz albums by American artists would be appropriate. I understand this would be hard to enforce or prove. In my opinion, the only entires in Category:Jazz albums by American artists should be jazz albums by American artists, we don't need to include Category:John Coltrane albums as a subcategory. (I'm trying to make a point here as just using Coltrane as an example to follow your lead. Coltrane may not be the best example if his work is almost exclusively jazz, but there are artists who span different genres.) ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
"Otherwise, we are showing inaccurate information, plain and simple." If you think of these as a kind of perfect set category that only ever includes albums of a certain genre, then yes. If you think of them as more-or-less strict topic categories that are useful for navigation, then no. Please consider the grindcore example I gave above: if you have an artist who exclusively releases grindcore music except for one joke soft-rock album, when someone is navigating to look at grindcore albums, it will be more confusing to not find that artist categorized there and instead find a bunch of individual albums. For that matter, the Category:Albums by artist nationality tree will be much harder to navigate as tens of thousands of categories will come out of it. We have over 20,000 albums by artist categories and (I think) 180,000 album articles. Shuffling them all into higher-level categories will be a logistical nitemare for those doing the editing and those doing the reading. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree. When I click on a category on Wikipedia, I prefer to see only entries which are strictly applicable. I just don't see a need to say all works by an artist are one type of genre, ever. We should be adding categories to specific entries as sources allow. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
And the hundreds of editors who have worked on album articles for decades and the dozens of members of this project don't have a problem with the existing system: it's helpful for navigating and it's reasonable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'd like to hear that from them. So far, you seem to be the editor resisting change the most. (Again, I mean no offense here. I respect your opinion and personal preferences, but I'd invite others to weigh in, too!) I don't think a preference by one or a handful of editors should prevent us from attempting to improve how album categories are organized. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Your argument makes no sense. "the Category:Albums by artist nationality tree will be much harder to navigate as tens of thousands of categories will come out of it."? How so? Can you give some examples of "new" categories that would be created? The "all albums by artist X" categories would be upmerged to the country (no genre) level, and the individual albums would be added to the existing cats of "album by genre and country". Yes, this would increase the number of entries in these cats, but it would also massively decrease the number of incorrect entries, which is the main issue. It would e.g. clean out the rather random Category:Teen pop albums, which contains Category:Esmée Denters albums. This cat has only one entry, so changing it from the subcat to the record level wouldn't change the number of entries. However, it might make it more obvious that neither the artist article nor the album article uses the genre or description "teen pop", and so is once again an incorrect entry in the cat tree. Having these defined on an article basis instead of at the category level will significantly reduce the number of wrong entries. Fram (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
"How so? Can you give some examples of "new" categories that would be created?" All of the American artists will now be removed from American genre categories to just albums by American artists: there are hundreds of these. There are tens of thousands of articles in these subcategories that would now be moved up to these now-parent categories. This doesn't "not make sense": it's literally what you're advocating we do. I also didn't write anything about new categories, so your question doesn't make sense. When did I write anything about new categories being created? Ctrl+F "new" shows nothing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
You actually did, "as tens of thousands of categories will come out of it" but I presume you meant "as tens of thousands of articles will come out of it" instead? As there are no "tens of thousands of categories" involved in this discussion, it seemed like you were claiming that these would "come out of it", i.e. would have to be created somehow. Fram (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Specific example: Miley Cyrus

I'd like to look at a specific example: Category:Miley Cyrus albums.

Current categories include:

Here's genres listed in the articles for select albums:

Tell me, why on earth are we calling all Miley Cyrus albums "Dance-pop", "Pop rock", and "Teen pop"? It makes no sense to me. In my opinion, genre categories should be applied to individual album entries as sources allow. Yes, subcategories will be helpful, but we can categorize by century, by decade, by subgenre, etc. There may be very good reasons for keeping the current system, but I'm struggling to understand why an overhaul is not needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf: Do you have any interest in discussing this particular example? I'm curious if we can come to some sort of agreement about how the current structure is problematic and/or discuss alternative ways we could categorize Category:Miley Cyrus albums. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Happy to, but didn't want to dominate the conversation more. Miley Cyrus is generally a pop artist: if her albums cover several subgrenes of pop, move her artist category up to Category:Pop albums by American artists and categorize individual albums by sub-genre. This is useful for navigation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
What's the problem with placing Category:Miley Cyrus albums under Category:Albums by American artists and leaving the genre categories for the individual album articles? I'm trying to understand why you think we need to call all Miley Cyrus albums "pop" specifically. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Because then [[:Category:Albums by American artists will be filled with thousands of categories, making it harder to navigate and Category:Pop albums by American artists will be flooded with tens of thousands of articles, making it harder to navigate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
But we could create subcategories like Category:1990s albums by American artists, Category:1990s pop albums by American artists, or Category:Electropop albums by American artists. I'm still not seeing any reason to call all works by an artist any specific genre. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
We're just repeating ourselves. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm still not understanding, so please be patient with me. What's wrong with the red linked subcategories I've proposed? Aren't these appropriate ways to distribute entries in Category:Pop albums by American artists, without associating a specific genre with specific artists? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
That would be difficult and cumbersome to navigate and require making dozens (hundreds?) of new categories, whereas the existing way of doing things is easy and intuitive. It is common to think of Miley Cyrus as a pop musician. If if someday she releases a smooth jazz album, she will still generally be considered a pop artist and it is easy to find her albums by navigating from Category:Pop albums by American artists. Upmerging all of these artist categories to their nationalities will make that tree harder to navigate and require either tens of thousands of individual articles to be upmerged or the creation of hundreds of triple- and quadruple-intersection categories to house them. That is a huge amount of work and makes it much less easy to navigate, for no pay off. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The current structure is definitely not intuitive, in my opinion, and the pay off of restructuring is Wikipedia not hosting misinformation. I just don't get it, but if no other editors are going to weigh in here, then I'll just going to go back to giving up on this request to overhaul the structure. Thanks for indulging me here, Koavf. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your perspective as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Would any other editors care to weigh in here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I have not joined in on this conversation because I have never understood the need for Categories, and would prefer if they were all swept away. However, from within the confines of this conversation, I do agree with Another Believer that mass use of Categories for artist albums is the same as lumping together all works of the artist into genres whether they should be there or not, so if it ever came down to a vote, I would vote to support Another Believer's position. Since I don't care for Categories, I don't care about the number of entries that are made in a category, so I would vote for accuracy over accessibility. Mburrell (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Im also of the mindset that categories are more trouble than they're worth, and not widely used (or even known of) by your average general reader. Completely neutral on what to do here. Sergecross73 msg me 04:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
If properly implemented, categories are a useful tool when researching an artist or genre (this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right?). If identifying specific albums is important, categorizing them individually is the better solution. If all that is wanted is a general idea of how an artist's albums (or songs) may be classified overall, then the current approach is OK. I prefer accuracy, as most discussion participants over the years seem to favor. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyone interested in drafting a Request for Comment here? I feel like I've done what I can to try to change the current system, which is clearly problematic. If nothing else can be done, then I'll just go back to cringing each time I see an incorrect subcategory. :p ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"Previous / next release" in album infoboxes

Per WP:EXISTING, "Navigation templates provide navigation among existing articles". In other words, we shouldn't fill navigation templates with stuff that we don't have Wikipedia pages for — they're for navigation, not for lists. I agree with this logic.

Until recently I assumed this also applied to the "previous / next release" field in album infoboxes. ie, don't include things we don't have Wikipedia pages for. Then the obvious occurred to me, which is that infoboxes are not navboxes.

Case in point: A Light For Attracting Attention. The "next release" after this album was The Smile (Live at Montreux Jazz Festival, July 2022) which is a live EP with no Wikipedia article (and doesn't need one). The next release after that will be another live EP which also doesn't need a Wikipedia article. At this point the chain breaks, as there will be no way to see via a series of infoboxes which release came after which. However, that may be by the by for our purposes.

I'm now of the suspicion that including things we don't have Wikipedia pages for is actually fine, just as it's OK to list, eg, spouses in infoboxes when those spouses do not have Wikipedia pages. But I might be completely wrong there. I just wanted to check what the consensus is on using this field. Popcornfud (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure this was discussed and decided it should link to the next available release that we have an article for. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 13:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Same, I treat it like NAV templates and list the next release that actually has an article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
There's plenty of information that goes in an infobox that isn't linked/doesn't have an article. In the case of albums, there are plenty of new/niche genres, record labels, and other items that don't have pages. I'm not opposed to treating just that part as navigational and being strict about linked items only there, but we should be wary about how we apply this restriction.
Oh, and since you brought up this specific example, I'd just like to note that this live album from the Smile does have four reviews from reliable sources listed on Metacritic and could very well get an article made at any time. In fact, I'm adding it to my to-do list now just 'cause. QuietHere (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Looks like that EP got more coverage than I realized! Popcornfud (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't apply NAV to everything in an infobox, just the succession/past/next releases box. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I would disagree with the above statements. I feel that if I am looking at the infobox and it states next album, I would like to see what the next album was. If a link was required for an album that does not have an article, I would like to see the link go to the discography page or discography section rather than by-pass next albums. This can create confusion with varying systems. I went looking for an example of one article linking to a non-existing article, and I found this broken system, where for KT Tunstall, her album Wax links to the previous studio album Kin, but Kin links forward to Live at O2 Shepherds Bush Empire which lists but does not link to KT Tunstall's Acoustic Extravaganza 2. Between Wax and Nut should have been Live at the Barrowland Ballroom Glasgow 2019, but neither of the linked albums in their previous/next incarnation include the 2019 live album. Basically the system was built using two different rules and should be clarified, but if I was to vote it would be to include every following or preceding album regardless of linkages. Mburrell (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I was always under the impression that they were meant to aid navigation in reading about an artists successive works. And linking to a non-article sort of "broke the chain" and stopped/hindered that process. If someone wanted to see a complete look at their work, I figured people would go to the respective discography. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I am a literalist. If the label states next, I want next. I always figure if they wanted to go to the next linked album, they could go to the discography or the template. Just explaining my thought process, not how it has to go. If we decide one way or the other, I hope we list it under a guideline.
Stating that it should go in a guideline, I went looking for a guideline, and found Template:Infobox album#Chronology. This states "This group of fields establishes a timeline of an artist's releases. In general, all albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain in order of release date"... "If the previous or next release has a Wikipedia article, link the title to the corresponding article. Take care to maintain the integrity of chains, so that when release "A" points to "B" as the next release, "B" points back to "A" as the previous release." Note that it does not assume that the next release has a link, only that if there is a link we should link to it. Mburrell (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I prefer this solution as well. Discography pages/sections already work fine for navigation because obviously everything that has an article will be linked there and everything that doesn't should be redirecting there anyway, or at least somewhere nearby. There are plenty of slightly indirect navigation options that I don't think we necessarily need this one to be such too, especially when it is labelled "chronology" so it does set an expectation of showing a complete timeline. QuietHere (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
A discussion a while back concluded that the literal meaning ("the arrangement of events or dates in the order of their occurrence") should be used. A chronology should not skip over album (or singles) just because there is no WP article for that item, otherwise it would be misleading. If necessary, "Chronology" could be relabeled "Article chronology" or such. But the best place for these navigation aids would be in a navbox at the bottom, since infobox details should pertain to the actual release itself. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
whatever the consensus is here I would really like to get it written up in the MoS as it's something we're 1) inconsistent about in articles and 2) consistently confused about in Talk discussions. Does anyone want to write something? Popcornfud (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, the consensus/participation is a bit weak to be adding to the MoS, but there appears to be a slight consensus against me, so if I'm over-ruled, so be it. A discussion like this likely won't endure much scrutiny though. Just my two cents. Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I honestly don't care which approach we use, but we should settle on one of them as it comes up repeatedly. It's kind of weird imo that we have this major visible field in every album article that we have no clearly available consensus or guidance on how to use. Popcornfud (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, the discussion has been eye opening. I didn't realize there was disagreement on this. I was under the impression the inconsistencies were largely due to passerby/newbie editors. That's generally been the ecoeruu it experience on my watchlist. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
If you think it is important, an RfC would be better to get a broader consensus. A lot of these nuts-and-bolts infobox issues benefit from clear guidance. P.S. The singles chronology could also be included. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Michael Jackson claim as "the most-awarded music artist"

If anyone interested, this is an RfC about that debatable claim. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize that the statement that claimed Michael Jackson as "the most awarded music artist" was already removed from Jackson's article recently.

The RfC is only focused on adding a new sentence to Jackson's article, in order to state that there are some sources/estimates that regard Jackson as the most awarded music artist in history. But it is not about labeling him directly as "the most awarded" (since, as I said, that has already been recently removed from the article). Salvabl (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

LP track listing numberings

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 [[2]].) 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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 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[3] 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)

So, is someone going to update the album article style guide to reflect this discussion? — Mudwater (Talk) 00:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I kind of dropped the ball on this. I'm happy to do it, if we feel a consensus has been reached. Do I need to start a RFC to do it formally, though? The Keymaster (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd say go for it. In my opinion there's not a consensus about the exact best wording, but there is general agreement about what the style guide should say about track listing numbering. So in my view you can go ahead, and I or other editors can make additional adjustments if appropriate, and continue to discuss them here. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good! I will try to amend it within the next day or two and I'll link to the discussion here, so folks will know we hashed it out beforehand. Thanks for your support. The Keymaster (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
It is finally done. See WP:TRACKLISTING. I added the text we'd devised here and tweaked a word or two for extra clarification. As I was editing, it occurred to me that it might also be a good idea to add a sentence about bonus track numbering, and how li value="[number]" can be used after a track listing to list bonus tracks, starting where the numbering left off from the original release. Just an idea, as it's another thing I routinely see people list improperly (starting the bonuses at 1 again), probably because they don't know that the code exists. The Keymaster (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Lo-fi as genre

In a moment of personal judgment, I've just now removed the lo-fi music tag from the genre section of Midnight Boom's and Mountain Battles' infoboxes, as well as their respective listings at List of 2008 albums. But before I turn this into a full-blown crusade or anything, I'd like confirmation here that I haven't misread anything. From what I see, the lo-fi music article only has a single section, the "genre crystallization" subheading under "1990s: Changed definitions of 'lo-fi' and 'indie'", which suggests a period where "lo-fi" was regarded as a distinct genre rather than just a descriptor that applies to numerous genres such as slacker rock and garage rock. But in finding three articles (also including Little Joy where the genres were unsourced) which used it as a genre label, I wonder if the article is contradictory with some common understanding of what the term refers to, and perhaps even one which reliable sources might reflect which has been heretofore missed or ignored by that page's editors.
In short, I don't think lo-fi is it's own genre per the way the article describes it, but I want to be sure I have that right before treating it as such. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_68&oldid=1149237619"