→Placement of stub template in article: Per MoS (layout), it should appear in the footer, after the categories. |
SelectionBot (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
:Per [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Standard_appendices_and_footers|MoS (layout)]], it should appear in the footer, after the categories. [[User:PL290|PL290]] ([[User talk:PL290|talk]]) 10:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC) |
:Per [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Standard_appendices_and_footers|MoS (layout)]], it should appear in the footer, after the categories. [[User:PL290|PL290]] ([[User talk:PL290|talk]]) 10:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Album articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release == |
|||
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the [[Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team|Wikipedia 1.0 team]] for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Article selection|selected based on their assessed importance and quality]], then article ''versions'' (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the [[WikiTrust]] algorithm. |
|||
We would like to ask you to review the [http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&namespace=0&pagename=&quality=&importance=&score=&limit=100&offset=1&sorta=Importance&sortb=Quality&filterRelease=on&reviewFilter=0&releaseFilter=1&projecta=Album Album articles and revisionIDs we have chosen]. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at '''[[Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8]]''' with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/cgi-bin/problems.cgi articles with cleanup tags] and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at [[Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8]]. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th. |
|||
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as [[One Laptop per Child]] and [http://schools-wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia for Schools] to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with [[Wikipedia_talk:Version_0.8|your WikiProject's feedback]]! |
|||
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, [[User:SelectionBot|SelectionBot]] 16:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:29, 6 November 2010
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Scaruffi
it must be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.40.72.252 (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- What must be added? And added to what? If you're trying to make a point here, you're going to have to explain yourself better. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- As of now Scaruffi is not considered a professional critic by Wiki standards, and therefore his reviews should not be included in album articles. However, this can change if we vote for his inclusion. I believe that his reviews should be added to the "eclectic" albums lacking reviews from mainstream critics/publications/websites. A lot of people have made an argument that Scaruffi is merely a guy with too much time on his hands and that anyone can do what he does. This argument is very weak and banal.
- Things to Think About:
- How many other "average Joes" have self-published 500+ page books on rock, jazz, and consciousness?
- How many other "average Joes" have written about 8,000+ musicians?
- How many other "average Joes" receive four million hits per month on their self produced website?
- How many other "average Joes" have interviewed 50 musicians?
- Things to Think About:
- WestArcherLives (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- As of now Scaruffi is not considered a professional critic by Wiki standards, and therefore his reviews should not be included in album articles. However, this can change if we vote for his inclusion. I believe that his reviews should be added to the "eclectic" albums lacking reviews from mainstream critics/publications/websites. A lot of people have made an argument that Scaruffi is merely a guy with too much time on his hands and that anyone can do what he does. This argument is very weak and banal.
- One more thing. Here's the current stance on including a critic. "Specifically, reviews should be written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs), and must be from a source that is independent of the artist, record company, etc." To call his website a "personal blog" shows your lack of competence of understanding the difference between a website and a blog.
- Cons:
- He does not host an online publication, but he does pay for the website.
- Pros:
- He has a staff of volunteers (unpaid interns).
- He has a database of over 8,000 artists. This is helpful for the more obscure albums/artists.
- Cons:
- I am merely suggesting that we use Scaruffi for artists/albums that require information that is not accessible from these mainstream critics. Perhaps articles should be flagged as "obscure"? (We already flag/rate articles on their significance and importance...this obviously denotes a sense of obscurity). Please consider.
- WestArcherLives (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- One more thing. Here's the current stance on including a critic. "Specifically, reviews should be written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs), and must be from a source that is independent of the artist, record company, etc." To call his website a "personal blog" shows your lack of competence of understanding the difference between a website and a blog.
Advice
A young new editor (User:Grace603) has asked me for an opinion on her contributions to "Here We Go Again (pureNRG album)". I can't say how Wikipedia prefers to deal with contemporary pop music, so I'm forwarding her question here. Perhaps someone else might be able to offer her some advice. Cavila (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The article GoodThunder (album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No incoming links, unlikely direct search, all content moved to GoodThunder (band)
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Question for "cover" section
Should the image for the album cover include or exclude the "Parental Advisory" label if the album has been warranted explicit by the RIAA? • GunMetal Angel 22:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- IMO if an equivalent image is available sans the warning, use that one. The label isn't part of the cover in 99% of cases. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- You mean it is just on the plastic overwrap, right?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Leave it out. I'm assuming the warning only exists on American pressings anyway, and most major-label albums are released internationally. —Gendralman (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- The label isn't part of the plastic overwrap anymore, and it is no longer a sticker, it has been in-printed with the covers for about a decade now. But if you guys say so to leave it out when uploading the album artwork, I guess then that's how it'll be. Be sure to write-this up on the survey, though; because that's the most important thing. - GunMetal Angel 19:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Leave it out. I'm assuming the warning only exists on American pressings anyway, and most major-label albums are released internationally. —Gendralman (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- You mean it is just on the plastic overwrap, right?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Given that the album linked in the title has been out since September 28th, I boldly changed the article class from future class to B-class. Seeing as I'm not well versed in this WikiProject's rating scale, I would like it if someone would please double check my assessment and let me know if I assessed it correctly. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Release History
I was suggested to bring this up here. As you can see on this album here, in the template box, underneath the release dates it says see release history and it takes you to the release history section. I've tried to add this to other albums, as have other users, and certain users keep saying it is not needed, and we should not be sending people to the bottom of the page when they can just read the article. Ok, yeah we want people to read the article, but if you just want a release date your not going to read the article anyway. I was told to discuss this issue here and would like to know what other people's opinions were on this. It doesn't harm anyone, it's useful, and there is nowhere that says this is against the rules and can't go in pages. Even an admin I have asked about this didn't say it couldn't be added. Please discuss! I think we should add this on any album page that has a release history section. --Shadow (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is a discussion above, but it is called "Redirect links".—Iknow23 (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Sales estimations
Should sales estimations for albums be included in album articles? Such as this edit to the Speak Now article? Dan56 (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Succession boxes proposal
I've posted a proposal on the use of song and album succession boxes here if anyone is interested. 28bytes (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The Way (album)
The 70s, Jesus music band called The Way (band) released their first album in 1973. As it was a self-titled album it has been sitting at The Way (album). Apparently the Irish band The Script have announced that they too will be releasing an album called The Way in 2011. An anon came by and attempted to hijack the existing article. I would like some guidance in what to name the two albums. I'm assuming that since there are only going to be two articles there's no need for a disambiguation page. I thing that calling the existing article "The Way (The Way album)" is a bit awkward, but think "The Way (The Switch album)" isn't quite as awkward. Suggestions? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Melodic.net
Melodic.net was founded by a musical industrialist. It is the European leading site for modern rock and it meet WP:NME. I thought I should ask whether or not its reviews are professional to be included in an album article. Is it a professional review site?--Strawberry Slugs (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you feel that Melodic.net should be added to our list of review sites, your best option is probably that you bring us the necessary evidence, like other editors did in the past. For example here, here, or here. Personally, I have never heard of that site, and I am not prepared to do the necessary work to prove it's notablity and reliability. Good luck with it! – IbLeo(talk) 20:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Allmusic's URL syntax has changed...
... and a discussion about how we migrate all links to the new syntax is taking place here. As this project probably has the most articles impacted someone might like to join the discussion. – IbLeo(talk) 21:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Placement of stub template in article
Does anyone know if there exists a guideline for where in an article we should place a stub template? At the top? At the bottom? If yes, before or after the navbox? Cheers. – IbLeo(talk) 08:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Per MoS (layout), it should appear in the footer, after the categories. PL290 (talk) 10:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Album articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Album articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)