→Yet another proposal: + comment |
|||
Line 241: | Line 241: | ||
At the moment I'm thinking a discographical list (whether part of an article, or a stand-alone list) is a better and easier way to both maintain ''and'' find this kind of information. Additionally, a list can include albums that ''don't'' have articles, something a category can't do. As far as jazz goes, there are many, many, many more jazz records than there are Wikipedia articles about jazz records. I suspect this holds true on other musical genres. My $0.02. -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
At the moment I'm thinking a discographical list (whether part of an article, or a stand-alone list) is a better and easier way to both maintain ''and'' find this kind of information. Additionally, a list can include albums that ''don't'' have articles, something a category can't do. As far as jazz goes, there are many, many, many more jazz records than there are Wikipedia articles about jazz records. I suspect this holds true on other musical genres. My $0.02. -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
*So for some reason other projects realize we can make something like [[:Category:Jazz musicians by genre]] which encompasses subgenres, but [[WP:ALBUMS]] cannot come up with a way to do the same in a simple manner? The list idea does not solve anything concerning [[WP:ALBUMS}] inability to address this issue. The problem will still persist. When albums belong in a subgenre, they should be categorized in that subgenre. Why is this a difficult concept to understand? [[WP:ALBUMS]] seems ultimately uninterested in having subgenres. That is what i am hearing. I thought that this project would embrace subgenres. I mean, we are dealing with albums of music! I believe firmly that if we cannot clear this up, then [[WP:ALBUMS]] has demonstrated its incompetancy and general antipathy toward categorizing artist albums correctly. End of story. ([[User:Mind meal|Mind meal]] 19:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) |
Revision as of 19:34, 13 July 2007
Archives |
---|
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 |
Professional reviews sorting
The guidelines at WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews say to sort the professional reviews alphabetically. It is unclear what that means for personal names like Robert Christgau and Piero Scaruffi. These are sometimes sorted by the first name and sometimes by the last. I can see arguments for both methods. Sorting by last name is the obvious way to sort personal names. On the other hand sorting by the first name brings greater consistency with the other review sources (which are in a majority) and is in my experience more common (leading one to assume that editors in general consider it to be the more obvious method). I'd like to standardize this as well, and am fine with either method being chosen. --PEJL 17:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've been sorting on first. I'm not sure why. / edgarde 17:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Both methods make sense but I always sorted them by first names without even realizing the issue. Jogers (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Let's just decide to sort them by first name then. --PEJL 14:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- After probably going through a similar internal deliberative process as others, I've sorted by first name because that's the way the names are displayed. It didn't look right to me sorting Christgau's reviews as a C when the name is displayed as Robert Christgau. --Sanfranman59 17:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I just realized that we have a similar sorting inconsistency with review source names like The Guardian as well. --PEJL 22:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Error in template
The text in the template says: "an attempt at building a useful resource", shouldn't it be "an useful"? Guirro 00:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. "Useful" phonetically starts with a 'y' sound - "yoos-full" - so it gets "a" and not "an". (ESkog)(Talk) 00:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Maintenance list update notice
I've just updated the List4. Jogers (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've also added a list of album pages which titles contain an opening parenthesis without a space before it as requested by Fisherjs. If anybody knows how to make a regex that would allow me to make a list of titles that have an open parenthesis but not a closing one I could create this one as well. Jogers (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
\([^)]*$
--PEJL 19:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Release dates
In reference to the details, it is said that Released "Should refer to the earliest known date." now If there are a couple release dates for different countries, can we list those other dates as long as it doesn't get too cluttered? -- Reaper X 02:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I tend to list about 1-4 depending, but any more than that it should be a table on the page. If the info's just laid crappily on the page, and you an't be bothered making the table yourself, just chuch a {{make table}} tag in there. --lincalinca 03:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- It should refer to only the earliest date. There was some discussion about changing that guideline a while back, but no change was made. A table is a useful way to display multiple dates, which has the added benefit that it can also contain information about labels, formats and catalog numbers. See for example Kid A. --PEJL 03:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Chronology
I was just looking over the chronology section to try and figure out how to order many of the jazz albums I intend to enter into the encyclopedia. In jazz, unlike many other genres, recording dates are often as or more important than release dates. I want to know if the normal way of going about this entails going by release date or recording date. For instance, some albums like Hank Mobley's Another Workout was recorded years ago and not released until decades later. What is one to do in this kind of instance? Thanks. (Mind meal 09:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
- Since one album may have several recording dates, including dates that span those of other albums, chronology can only be consistent if release date is used. Obviously recording dates should still be included in the article, if known. / edgarde 09:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. P.S. - I am severely addicted to this place. Just when you think you've bored yourself silly applying yourself to one task, something else comes up. Albums sound fun. (Mind meal 09:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
- As well as dates, another issue to bear in mind with jazz albums is that many released before the mid-1950s were often repackaged compilations of material, some of which were tracks previously issued on 10" discs (typically three 10" discs worth of stuff spread over two 12") and some of which were left-overs from the recording sessions – as also happened with re-issues of albums on CDs. I think the 1949 Charlie Parker album on Dial ('The Bird Blows the Blues') was the first 33⅓ 12" jazz album; at the time 12" format was considered something for the classical market and 78 rpm and 10" EP was dominant for jazz. Gradually the small labels, like Blue Note, made the switch and merged and re-released their 10" catalogue in 12" LP format. The long-play album, containing music intentionally created to be grouped together as a commercial release, is more a thing of the late 1950s and into the 1960s, e.g. Miles Davis's Kind of Blue, or especially his and Gil Evans' Miles Ahead. Ricadus 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. P.S. - I am severely addicted to this place. Just when you think you've bored yourself silly applying yourself to one task, something else comes up. Albums sound fun. (Mind meal 09:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
Making artist names show up in categories devoted to albums by a specific genre
Hello there. I just created a few categories, and intend to expand them. An example is my creation of Category:Hard bop albums, which I have made so it appears in the Category:Hard-bop musicians also, for further circulation. My question is how, if possible, one can make the name of the artist appear with the album title in these sections? Is there an easier way? I do not want to place Category:John Coltrane albums in the hard bop album category, because not all albums by Coltrane are hard bop. See the problem? Any help would be great. (Mind meal 03:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
- When artists deviate from their regular spectrum of music, then you categorise album for album. For instance, Category:John Coltrane albums should be included in Category:Jazz albums and Category:Albums by artist, and each album by Coltrane should have Category:John Coltrane albums but those that deviate from Jazz should be individually categorised as, for instance Category:Hard bop albums. Just like Robbie Williams since not every RW album is a Swing album(like Swing When You're Winning), nor Pop (Like Escapology), nor Rock (like Sing When You're Winning) or even dance music (like Rudebox). All of his albums slant in a different area than each other so he should only have Category:Albums by artist (and maybe Category:Robbie Williams) as the parent cats of him. Does that help/make sense/confuse you further? --lincalinca 06:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, thank you for trying to clarify things further. I pretty much understand the categorization process as you just laid it out. My specific question was perhaps not as clear as it could have been. Say I categorized a Coltrane album under Hard bop albums. This category is bound to fill up with hundreds and thousands of albums by various musicians over time. I was curious to know if there was a way to format the categorization on their album page so that when the album appears in the Hard bop albums section, their name can appear after it. Also, I am not categorizing albums that fall into hard bop also under jazz, as hard bop is a form of jazz. Instead, I have created a Category:Jazz albums by genre which is now on the Category:Jazz albums page. I am curious also to know if there is a way to create a default Category:Jazz albums by artist as well, so as to tidy up the Jazz albums page and make for easier browsing. Perhaps that last bit is overkill, though. (Mind meal 07:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
- I don't think you can add more information about category entries. That's one of the limitations of categories. Help:Category has more info. --PEJL 07:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder if it would be acceptable to begin doing something likeCategory:John Coltrane hard-bop albums, to be found in the hard bop category only....thoughts? To do this with all artists could make order out of what will potentially become chaos. I don't want browsers to click on albums when they don't know who created it. This would make for excellent searching, imo, and could be done for many arists of various genres. (Mind meal 07:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
- Please see Category:Free funk albums to see what I have in mind. This way everything is not randomized, leaving users to mystery click albums in specific genre categories. (Mind meal 08:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
- Well, I've decided to stop going down this route anyway, as it is really tedious work. I guess folks will just have to mystery guess for now, until a solution can come along that better organizes albums by genre. Thanks for the input, anyway. (Mind meal 09:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
Live tribute albums
Is there consensus on what to enter in the "type" field for such albums? (Mind meal 16:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
- I don't know of any. One option is to use the most distinctive type, for example a live album by a tribute band might be categorized as "live", while a tribute album by a non-tribute band might be categorized as "tribute". Just use your best judgement, and consider also using the "Longtype" parameter. --PEJL 22:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
TfD nominations for album infobox alternatives
Template:Infobox Album/HTML, Template:Infobox Album/temp and Template:Triptych Cover album infobox have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entries on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --PEJL 22:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Category:Uncategorised albums
Starting to get filled with articles that have been there since June. 172.135.96.6 01:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I worked on some of these - artist, year and genre anyway - but most of these are barely stubs. I can't even tell what some of them are. Categorization is the least of our worries, but they are more likely to get fixed if they show up in some categories. Hopefully someone with more knowledge/time can help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sampm (talk • contribs).
Personnel
Isn't it rather redundant to force a list of personnel at the end of an album article when all of the personnel is mentioned in the prose of the article? Teemu08 02:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it is redundant information (as is the data in most infoboxes) but it is included for quick reference. Papa November 1 10:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Chronology conflicts
What are we to do when an album is by two or more musicians and we are chronologically ordering both musicians' albums? Thank you. (Mind meal 11:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
- Can you give an example? You can use the {{Extra chronology 2}} template to provide the second artist's chronology in the infobox. See documentation for details. - Papa November 1 12:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_9#Category:Jazz_albums_by_artist. I believe that all Category:Albums by artist should be broken down into genre+albums+by artist, as Category:Jazz albums by artist has done. Nobody ever browses Category:Albums by artist. If they want to find someone, they will just search for their article and look for a discography there. Please see Category:Jazz albums to get a feel for what potential this wields. Far from impeding navigation, I believe this accelerates it in a much more useful manner. Otherwise, people have to just randomly click on an album title in say, Category:Jazz albums, not knowing anything about it. Albums need major work in terms of categorization, and I think that this is a good first step. (Mind meal 15:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
Album article names vs WP:UCN
I'm involved in a discussion at Talk:Pussy Cats (The Walkmen album), where the argument was made that album articles should use the most common name, citing WP:UCN, even if this is not what is (considered to be) the actual album name. In my experience this is not something that is usually adhered to for album articles. Instead we almost always use the actual album name as the name of the article (with disambiguation as necessary). I note that our guideline at WP:ALBUM#Naming doesn't say anything about this. Should we be taking WP:UCN into account for album articles names, or should we disregard it (as we currently do)? Either way, I think we should clarify this at WP:ALBUM#Naming. (There is also a question about what the official album name is in this case, but that is a separate issue.) --PEJL 17:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article name for an album article should be the name of the album, but needs to be able to reflect both necessary disambiguation and differences of opinion about when the album title starts and stops. While I haven't seen the disc, if the cover image for Pussy Cats is accurate, then I personally wouldn't include "starring The Walkmen" as part of the title. -Acjelen 18:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- The position of the editor I was discussing with was that the official title included the band name (because that's what the website referred to it as) but that the article should not be at what he considered to be the official title (because of WP:UCN). The second point is what I was asking about above. To the first point I responded as follows, which might be worth repeating here:
- I said "if you consider" intentionally, because what is the official title of an album isn't as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Most albums contain both the artist name and the album name in some combination on for example the front cover. The album never explicitly says which is which ("This is the official title of the album: ..."), we just assume that the artist name is not included in the album name in most cases, because it is written in a way that makes this likely (on a separate line, for example). Other cases are less obvious. There are lots of examples of "Artist Album", "Artist: Album", "Artist's Album" and "Album by Artist" and the like that are in a grey area. I contend that "Album starring Artist" is also in that grey area.
- --PEJL 20:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've always held that Macy Gray's first album is Macy Gray On How Life Is, not just On How Life Is. -Acjelen 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- The position of the editor I was discussing with was that the official title included the band name (because that's what the website referred to it as) but that the article should not be at what he considered to be the official title (because of WP:UCN). The second point is what I was asking about above. To the first point I responded as follows, which might be worth repeating here:
Proposal for a change to album categorization
Hello fellow WP:Album members. Recently I found what I feel is a gap in our current method of categorization. Wikipedia, as per it's own definition, can be used either by search or browse. These are two legitimate methods. I ask everyone to put their bias at the door, and listen to this proposal with an open mind. I am going to number my points, so to make them more readable. My proposal is that we begin subcategorizing Category:Albums by artist into Genre Albums by artist.
- As Category:Albums by artist currently functions, there is absolutely no way for users to find artist albums by genre. Users have no way to browse jazz albums, or hip hop albums, or any genre you can imagine, by artist. Instead, they are left with the odd option of clicking on a random album title. They know nothing of who made it. There is no context. Only that the album mysteriously falls into this certain category.
- It has been suggested previously that something like Category:Jay-Z albums simply be placed in Category:Hip hop albums. My proposition is that this practice is incorrect. Category:Rap albums doesn't say anything about artists, so we need a Category:Rap albums by artist to function as part of the Category:Rap albums to organize these people. In most categories, when albums by artist are placed in a genre+albums category, the list goes on for page after page; it distracts users from the actual albums below the artists.
- This encourages browsing, and allows people to find musicians they typically would never find. This is the purpose of an encyclopedia, to educate people and help them access information as efficiently as possible.
- Category:Albums by artist is, quite simply, far too large. We categorize musicians by genre, why not those musician's albums by genre? Users do not browse the category Category:Albums by artist. I highly doubt anyone has EVER searched for ANY artist in that category. It doesn't really serve a purpose, aside from a potential mother category for subcategories. But for some strange reason we subcategorize them by everything BUT by artist. WHY?
- Music lovers enjoy certain genres more than others, and it would be optimal to give them that option without forcing them to randomly click on album titles in guess mode, trying to find something. I have more to say on this, but I've made my case. (Mind meal 18:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
- How is your proposal that much different than current practice. The category Category:Thrash metal albums is already divided into subcategories by musician/group. While some of the articles in the category need to be placed in an artist subcat, I don't see that as reason enough to change the structure. -Acjelen 19:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't. In that case all that would change is a Category:Thrash metal albums by artist would be created to house all of those artist albums; of course it would reside at Category:Thrash metal albums. These albums would still of course go into Category:Albums by artist also. Essentially it just leads to better organization. Technically those albums by artist do not belong there, as supposedly Category:Albums by artist is "all inclusive". So if someone wanted to move all of those artist album categories from a given album by genre page to the albums by artist category only, they would currently be justified in doing so. Not to mention that on some categories those albums by artist go on for many pages. This just serves to better organize things and condense the categories for easier browsing. It seems to me that Category:Thrash metal albums is for just that, thrash metal albums. If we want to have a category for thrash metal albums by artist, then it is logical we create a category for that. You see what I'm saying? Apparently this is controversial though, as you can see at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_9#Category:Jazz_albums_by_artist. (Mind meal 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
- Aren't you just renaming an existing category, but not changing it otherwise? I suppose if you wan't to do something like what we did for Category:Paul McCartney classical albums across the entire encyclopedia for all album articles, that would be different, but I don't see you suggesting that. -Acjelen 19:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I did do that in some instances but it is actually very laborous. See Category:Ornette Coleman free jazz albums as an example. This was criticized as being overcategorization. This proposal does not threaten anything at all, it just is an easier way of categorizing certain musicians who perform predominantly in certain genres. The way this would work is that when someone strays from the genre, then that album be categorized as you demonstrated with Category:Paul McCartney classical albums. The "genre+albums+by artist" would serve as an artists predominant field. And no, I am not proposing a rename. All I am proposing is that if we are going to include say Category:Miles Davis albums at Category:Jazz albums, why not create a subcategory at Jazz albums for Category:Jazz albums by artist? Incidentally, users can now view jazz albums by artist in one click, and not have to go to the second page to see the rest. It seems we do that sort of organization with everything else on here, ie. Category:Jazz albums by record label and Category:Jazz albums by nationality; the latter being more redundant that by artist could ever be. (Mind meal 19:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
- You are suggesting that Silver (Starflyer 59 album) would be in Cat:Starflyer 59 albums, a subcat of Shoegazing albums by artists, a subcat of Shoegazing albums, a subcat of Alternative rock albums, a subcat of Rock albums? But what would be the purpose of putting an additional layer of category between Category:Starflyer 59 albums and Category:Shoegazing albums? What else besides musician/group subcats would go in Category:Shoegazing albums? -Acjelen 20:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Because by definition they are shoegazing albums by artist. Please see Category:Rock albums. For a user to access all rock albums by artist, they must click next 200 three times. We place Category:Hip hop record labels in their own category, and do not dump them at Category:Hip hop albums. The same can be said for Category:Classical music record labels, and on and on. I don't understand the resistance, as it just does what other such subcategories do also....they organize things. This is not an additional layer, but merely a correct form of categorization. Why not just toss jazz record labels at Jazz albums, or jazz albums by nationality at jazz albums, and do away with "by record label" and "by nationality"? We don't because we keep things organized.(Mind meal 20:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
- But the number of artist subcats won't decrease in number by putting them in their own category, there will still be hundreds. Making sure that albums aren't just in a genre category will reduce the number, but we already have instructions for that. And I'm not sure what you are talk about when you reference "by record label" or "by nationality"? Is there a Category:Jazz albums by nationality? -Acjelen 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- But it WILL condense the actual Category:Rock albums. Right now it serves two purposes, it houses albums and then albums by artist. I am only saying they belong in a by artist category.(Mind meal 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
- But nearly all albums are by some artist. If you read the directions on this project, it should be very very few albums that are listed in, for example, Category:Rock albums by themselves and not in the subcat the for the musician. As an example, Addictive Poetry needs to be in the subcat Category:Badapple albums, Afili Yalnızlık in Category:Emre Aydın albums, and After Dark (album) in Category:The Make-Up albums. -Acjelen 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. Perhaps if you had suggested to this project the creation of the "by record label" and the "by nationality" you might have avoided all this trouble. Shoegazing albums by record label might be considered overcategorization. -Acjelen
- I wasn't suggesting that for shoegazing albums, for that is overcategorization. Apparently I am being unclear here. Shoegazing albums ultimately trace their roots to rock albums, right? Record labels and nationality are typically for the "mother genres". I wasn't suggesting any such thing concerning shoegazing albums. However, many of the head genres by album do house genre albums by record label and nationality. It is certainly not without precedent. Many record labels produce only one form of music. I don't know of any that produce only shoegazing albums. Could be wrong. All i am fighting for is by artist, for albums BY artist. I feel like I'm running around in circles here. Does anyone comprehend what I am proposing? I give up, everything that could be said has been said.(Mind meal 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
I find this quite difficult to follow, mainly because I'm not that familiar with the category structure. Would it be possible to summarize your proposal using a schematic chart? For example:
- Albums by artist:
- ARTIST albums:
- ALBUM
- ARTIST albums:
- Albums by genre:
- GENRE albums:
- ARTIST albums:
- ALBUM
- ARTIST albums:
- GENRE albums:
Perhaps such an overview could be useful at WP:ALBUM#Categories as well. --PEJL 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is how it currently works to my understanding:
- Category:Albums by artist - This is where all albums "by artist" go, ie. Category:Wayne Shorter albums, Category:Master P albums, et cetera. Irregardless of genre.
- Category:Jazz albums - This category is merely an example. It could be any genre followed by "albums". These categories currently house albums that have been categorized as "jazz albums". These categories also currently house Category:John Coltrane albums, as an example. It also can house other categories like Category:Jazz albums by record label for labels that specialize in that genre only, and also Category:Jazz albums by nationality (which I find redundant, actually).
Proposal Categories such as Category:Jazz albums by artist would also appear on the corresponding head category, in this case Category:Jazz albums and always Category:Albums by artist as well. My argument is that Category:John Coltrane albums does not belong in Category:Jazz albums as it is currently structured. This can be said for any category. By definition such albums are by artist, and either belong in Category:Albums by artist or (example) a more specific category like Category:Jazz albums by artist. This effectively separates "jazz albums" from "jazz albums by artist" in the mother category Category:Jazz albums, and creates easier navigation. See Category:Rock albums to see the disorder. There are albums by artist randomly tossed there. There are mere album titles tossed in the mix, also. There are rock albums by record label there in some instances. There are rock albums by nationality interspersed throughout. All I am proposing is that we organize them as has been done at Category:Jazz albums, ie. the subcats containing "genre+albums+by artist", "genre+albums+by genre" (for subgenres), "genre+albums+by record label", and "genre+albums+by nationality". This condenses all of the random subcategories displayed in categories like Category:Rock albums and is less intimidating for the reader. It is simply good housekeeping. (Mind meal 01:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
- Yes, a chart of some kind would help.
- Also, in any case, this looks to be a massive, and quite elaborate, undertaking. If only partially implemented, it would leave a mess (or at least I see that as an undesirable situation). Do you have ideas as to how it would be implemented across the entire range of artists and albums? –Unint 22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- It really would not be that difficult, provided a few people start using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser to do such work. I was able to effectively organize all albums like Category:Miles Davis albums under Category:Jazz albums by artist in about 30 minutes. I also provided a {{catmore2|}} template in each listing with a DEFAULTSORT, providing readers a link to the artist's article as well as alphabetically organizing them. It isn't very tough, because these albums by artist already are housed under categories like Category:Hip hop albums or Category:Pop albums; all this entails is a simple matter of recategorizing these artist albums in the "genre+albums+by artist" scheme I am proposing. It will make for less clutter. Ask yourself this simple question: Is Category:Jazz albums currently more user friendly than a category like Category:Rock albums, or not? When you navigate to them both, which has taken the time to properly organize albums in specific ways?(Mind meal 01:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
- Well I would agree that Category:Jazz albums is currently more user friendly than Category:Rock albums, but that has mostly to do with the fact that there are simply more rock albums that there are jazz albums (on WP anyway). Actually, if my understanding of the current categorization system is correct and if it were done correctly, I don't believe we would have the problem that you are trying to resolve. As I see it, Category:Jazz albums is similar to the proposed change whereas Category:Rock albums is the current way. If thats true then Category:Jazz albums should only have four items in it:
- Jazz albums by artist
- Jazz albums by genre
- Jazz albums by record label
- Jazz albums by nationality
- (and possibly) List of Jazz albums
- The logic is that there are no Jazz albums that don't fit into one or more of those subcats or subcat belonging in one of those such as Charlie Parker albums or Axiom Records albums. Making Rock albums, for example, subdivide would straighten things up slightly. Mostly due to the fact that genre subcats and artist subcats would no longer reside together. This would decrease the log by 21 items. In either case none of the pages you see listed in this cat belong here. Most are housed here b/c no proper subcat exists, such as Category:Babacar albums. This, in my understanding is miscategorization. Soooo, correctly categorizing Rock albums would decrease the long by 111 items without the proposed change.
Thus, I am of the opinion that both correctly categorizing and the proposal would help (this would make Category:Rock albums have only four/five items and the each subcategory would have only part of what is in this category now) and if, as you say, "It really would not be that difficult" then I don't see why not - as long as both things are done. I also may be misunderstanding one or both ways so correct me if I am. (Sampm 02:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
- Well I would agree that Category:Jazz albums is currently more user friendly than Category:Rock albums, but that has mostly to do with the fact that there are simply more rock albums that there are jazz albums (on WP anyway). Actually, if my understanding of the current categorization system is correct and if it were done correctly, I don't believe we would have the problem that you are trying to resolve. As I see it, Category:Jazz albums is similar to the proposed change whereas Category:Rock albums is the current way. If thats true then Category:Jazz albums should only have four items in it:
- "In either case none of the pages you see listed in this cat belong here. Most are housed here b/c no proper subcat exists, such as Category:Babacar albums."
- That there is one of the obstacles I am facing. The only logical place to put jazz albums by record label, by nationality, by genre, and by artist is on the jazz albums page. My vision is seeing something like I did with Category:Bebop musicians. Every single musician can be snugged into a subgenre, often multiple ones. Every album belong in specific subgenres. As we both know, the term "rock" is rather generic. It only serves to loosely define a starting point "medium" in which an artist or group performs in. Nobody actually plays simple "rock". What I have been doing is using All Music Guide as a reference on categorizing musicians, albums, et cetera. This has proven much more accurate than any other method I've tried. When a subgenre does not exist as a category here, I'll begin it when I encounter an artist that falls into it. You said that "Well I would agree that Category:Jazz albums is currently more user friendly than Category:Rock albums, but that has mostly to do with the fact that there are simply more rock albums that there are jazz albums (on WP anyway)." I think that in addition to that point, one can see that the entire top half of subcategories would be condensed into 4 simple subcategories. (Mind meal 04:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
- Past discussions have suggested duplicating All Music Guide genres and subgenres here, but it was suggested that we should not adhere so strictly to such a resource. Some of their categorization is also hotly contested. –Unint 13:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I emptied Category:Jazz albums by artist just now, as it was clear people at categories for discussion "weren't having that". Apparently it was useful but...did not fit into the mind of obsessive compulsives. Something like that. (Mind meal 10:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
Unofficial cover art
An editor recently added unofficial fan-made cover art to Destroyer (Ryan Adams album). Before I remove it, could someone please confirm that this isn't something that should be kept? Adam McMaster 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- It should definitely not be kept in a way that implies it is not unofficial, such as it currently does. It should probably not be included otherwise either, unless it is notable by itself. (Note to self: Handle cover at From the Sounds Inside per outcome of this topic.) --PEJL 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Of course the entire matter could be handled by removing the article itself. -Acjelen 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Who owns the copyright for photograph used in the cover? That seems like one question that could be used to resolve this. (Meanwhile, The Black Room is another article that would be affected.) –Unint 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, there may be copyright issues with such images, and it may be that such articles aren't notable enough to exist in some cases. But that doesn't answer the general question of whether unofficial covers should ever be included. Unless anyone can come up with an example of when such an image would be notable enough to be included, let's just decide to only use official cover art. I propose we add the following sentence at the beginning of the section WP:ALBUM#Album cover:
- An image of the official front cover of the original version of the album should be included at Cover.
- Besides saying that only official artwork should be used, this also says that the image should be of the front cover (obviously), and that it should be of the original version of the album. Some album articles don't currently adhere to the last point, and instead have the cover of a (possibly more extensive) re-release at the top of the infobox, with the original cover in an "Alternate cover" section. I feel that having the original cover at the top of the infobox is more appropriate, for consistency with the guidelines for "Released" and "Label", which say that these should refer to the information about the original version of the album. Any objections to adding this? --PEJL 16:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- When the original cover can be located, certainly. Sometimes the only image out there is of a reissue though. I agree fan art should never be included. (Mind meal 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
- Sure, it may be that finding the original cover art is difficult in some cases. We should still encourage editors to attempt to do so, shouldn't we? I intentionally left undefined what would happen if the original cover art could not be found (both for albums with reissue cover art and for albums without it), to keep the text simple. Are you saying the proposed wording needs altering? --PEJL 18:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- When the original cover can be located, certainly. Sometimes the only image out there is of a reissue though. I agree fan art should never be included. (Mind meal 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
- Sure, there may be copyright issues with such images, and it may be that such articles aren't notable enough to exist in some cases. But that doesn't answer the general question of whether unofficial covers should ever be included. Unless anyone can come up with an example of when such an image would be notable enough to be included, let's just decide to only use official cover art. I propose we add the following sentence at the beginning of the section WP:ALBUM#Album cover:
- Yeah I think something should be said along the lines of "When the original album cover is unable to be located, then the cover of a recent reissue of the said album may be acceptable as an alternative. This is especially true for reissues that share a strong resemblence to the original. When using a reissue cover, please note that in the article body." (Mind meal 18:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
Proposal - Break down this category by genres, ie. Category:Rock albums by artist.
- Vote options:
- Support indicates you support this proposal.
- Oppose indicates you do not support this proposal.
It is my belief that this category is absurdly large. I wonder why other categories this large become broken down, but this one remains so humongous? I would like to begin taking votes on whether we should begin breaking down albums by artist into specific genres (not subgenres). This currently is not permitted for some reason. Artists could still be placed in Category:Albums by artist, depending on consensus. I will go first with my own vote:
- Support so that artist albums do not hog entire categories devoted to say, Category:Rock albums. Instead, condense them into a dropdown category that is visible at Category:Rock albums. If an artist strays from a genre, please see Category:Paul McCartney classical albums on how to circumvent this conflict. (Mind meal 09:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
- Oppose. This is one obsessive-compulsive against such a change. I don't want a judgment call mandated on albums by artist, which is a great umbrella category. If an album category fits into jazz, the category can go into Category:Jazz albums.--Mike Selinker 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment But Mike, isn't that making the exact same judgment call you oppose? (Mind meal 20:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
Quick question about recent edit summary
Wondering if anyone can field this... Is this edit summary valid. "Live albums are listed by the year they were recorded, only studio albums are listed by the year they were released"??? Seems odd... I would have expected that by clicking "next album" I would get the next album recorded by the artist... Not a live performance recorded in one decade and released 4 decades later? Just hoping someone here could direct me to where that guideline is... thanks. 156.34.142.110 16:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. Albums should be listed by the year of release, per WP:ALBUM#Chronology. --PEJL 21:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I thought as much. The user who made the edit, Rock Soldier, also edits as an IP and under another "Alterego" username. He is a very hard working editor who has contributed a lot. But tends to make up his own rules as he goes along and doesn't seem to have a hard grasp on many of Wiki's music related project guidelines. Perhaps someone could have a chat with him and give him some links back here to show exactly what rules should be adhered to. Have a nice day. 156.34.142.110 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yet another proposal
- I continously am trying to find a way for album categories to more easily be navigated, and think I've found a simple solution. I propose we MOVE any album that is title only, and make them look like this:Second Genesis (Wayne Shorter album). This way when people browse albums by genre, they will know who made the album prior to clicking on it. Incidentally, Second genesis is named that way because it shares the name of a book also. I believe if this becomes common practice, albums by genre will be user friendly. (Mind meal 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- You do realize that everything you are proposing will require either recatigorizing or MOVING thousands of articles, right? -Violask81976 15:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, but that can happen over time. As it stands, the album categories suck anyway. May as well improve them if we can. If I'm browsing say Category:Hard bop albums, I'm just randomly selecting an album. It doesn't work. We need a way for people to know who made that album when browsing in such a way. (Mind meal 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- It really isn't preemptive, because the system employed currently leaves no room for browsing album categories in a logical manner and does not work, put simply; I look at it merely as a way to accomplish what is a rather major problem. It could be argued people do not really browse albums anyway, but that begs another question. Why? I'm not the only person who sees this problem, am I? If you have a better way to identify who made an album when searching through album categories by genre, I'm all ears. Categories like Category:John Coltrane albums don't cut it for more specific genres, like modal jazz, post-bop, hard bop, bebop, et cetera. Unless we did something like Category:John Coltrane modal jazz albums instead, but that is much more of a pain than this. Is there a way we could have someone work on coding that would place the artist name next to the album in categories when entering them into an album's category section? Maybe that would work. (Mind meal 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- Mind meal, the current scheme for categorization as spelled out on this project page is for album articles to be categorized by musician/musical group and by year, but not by genre. Category:Hard bop albums should have few or no album articles. That way a browser will know who recorded an album as the album will be in that musician's or musical group's category. For example, Brazilia (album) should be in Category:John Coltrane albums (or Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums), not by itself in Category:Hard bop albums. This system works for the majority of albums. I admit that it has draw backs for musicians who record albums in a variety of genres and for over-analyzed genres, like jazz. -Acjelen 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- As the policy stands we place Category:Slayer albums in Category:Thrash metal albums, not caring much about whether that is actually right or not. That may even work for Slayer! Ill grant you that. But it doesn't for a lot of other artists. You say it works for most albums, but I have to challenge you on that. I've just demonstrated how an entire genre (jazz) cannot be treated so carelessly. It doesn't work for certain genres. I hope people can see that. I can't in good faith follow such a guideline, for it decieves users. Do you realize that nobody performs "jazz"? That is the amazing thing about the artform. Not one person just plays "jazz". They play dixieland, or free jazz, or swing music. Our current methods are dishonest! They are downright dishonest. I could go that route you suggest, ie. Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums. I should do that for every album, even if falls into 5 or six genres, for every single artist known to man. That strikes me as backwards, i don't know about you. I even started doing that. But that is really hardcore work. I was just trying to introduce a simpler way. But I see that i am coming up against a major bureaucracy that has placed all their chips on one bet. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But everyone seems to be conceding "there is a problem, but, it's the best we have." That comes up over and over. No it isn't the best we can do! (Mind meal 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- No one might play jazz, but plenty of people hear it, know what it is without having to ask, and categorize it as "jazz", just as people do for "country" or "classical". If an album contains songs of more than two subgenres of jazz, then the album is jazz broadly. -Acjelen 20:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- As the policy stands we place Category:Slayer albums in Category:Thrash metal albums, not caring much about whether that is actually right or not. That may even work for Slayer! Ill grant you that. But it doesn't for a lot of other artists. You say it works for most albums, but I have to challenge you on that. I've just demonstrated how an entire genre (jazz) cannot be treated so carelessly. It doesn't work for certain genres. I hope people can see that. I can't in good faith follow such a guideline, for it decieves users. Do you realize that nobody performs "jazz"? That is the amazing thing about the artform. Not one person just plays "jazz". They play dixieland, or free jazz, or swing music. Our current methods are dishonest! They are downright dishonest. I could go that route you suggest, ie. Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums. I should do that for every album, even if falls into 5 or six genres, for every single artist known to man. That strikes me as backwards, i don't know about you. I even started doing that. But that is really hardcore work. I was just trying to introduce a simpler way. But I see that i am coming up against a major bureaucracy that has placed all their chips on one bet. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But everyone seems to be conceding "there is a problem, but, it's the best we have." That comes up over and over. No it isn't the best we can do! (Mind meal 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- Mind meal, the current scheme for categorization as spelled out on this project page is for album articles to be categorized by musician/musical group and by year, but not by genre. Category:Hard bop albums should have few or no album articles. That way a browser will know who recorded an album as the album will be in that musician's or musical group's category. For example, Brazilia (album) should be in Category:John Coltrane albums (or Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums), not by itself in Category:Hard bop albums. This system works for the majority of albums. I admit that it has draw backs for musicians who record albums in a variety of genres and for over-analyzed genres, like jazz. -Acjelen 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah well, Swing isn't hard bop, okay? People who listen to dixieland often abhor other forms. I take it you do not listen to jazz at all, because frankly various genres within the jazz medium vary greatly. Artist albums that clearly play nothing but jazz already have been going into Category:Jazz albums. Everything is so unclear about all of this that the guidelines beg rewriting. It is a real pain in the ass categorizing people the way I'm now doing it, ie. Category:Ornette Coleman avant-garde jazz albums...and it just looks weird. But what you are telling me is that is the "only way". No, it really is not the only way. It is the only way these guidelines permit...but...it is not the only way. All I'm trying to do is find a new way to do this. Is anyone willing to work this out? Do you not see the the asinine scheme we have going here? Why not just name an album The Shape of Jazz to Come as The Shape of Jazz to Come (Ornette Coleman album) and then simply put it in an already created category? This route forces one to make a unique category for every single artist who performs in subgenres, when they could just make the title clear from the start and categorize it appropriately. I'm not even about to keep this Category:Space monkey special awesome genre albums thing up, because it just doesn't make any sense at all. Rethink your category structure, because it is pathetic right now. Do you WANT your album jazz categories to suck? (Mind meal 20:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- It's not a point of whether you as a jazz fan knows the difference between bebop and hardbop, etc. A normal person who hears a "jazz" song is going to look for "jazz". Country is the same way. Classical is the same way. Why dont' you want to make it romance era, classical, baroque, etc? Because there's no need. Looking at the encyclopedia articles, i cannot tell the difference between hard bop and bebop. ANd I can tel lyou the difference between screamo, hardcore, post hardcore, and death metal even though most peopel cant' tell the difference either. If it's easier to fingure out the difference between those 4 then jazz, why bother? Most people won't, and don't. I see no problem. -Violask81976 20:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- You just demonstrated my point. Obviously nobody involved here has ever even studied jazz, let alone listen to it. This is an encyclopedia. Listen to Benny Goodman and then Miles Davis in the 1970s and you tell me that is the same thing. I don't think so. You are making a false comparison. Honestly, jazz is a unique genre preciesly because it varies from genre to genre so greatly. Listen to Ornette Coleman and then Dave Brubeck...that ain't the same thing. It's jazz, but it isn't the same kind of jazz. Not by a long shot. That's like saying soft rock is just like heavy metal, because they both fall under the "rock" genre. I am trying my best here, but I'm not sure it's even welcome. Being someone very involved in matters pertaining to music, I'm just telling you that these categories need a lot of work. But that work cannot get done if ideas can't be heard. (Mind meal 20:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- I'm worry, I don't really know what to say to it then. Are you proposing this for all albums or just jazz? Idoupt anybody will agree to pre-emptively disambiguating thousand of articles for no reason. If you're only trying to do this for Jazz, I guess I don't see why not. I still don't see a problem, but if you insist there is, then go for it. I won't lie, I have 1 Kenny G album on iTunes, I know nothing about Jazz. -Violask81976 20:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Violask8. Because I work only on jazz related articles, I guess I may be proposing it only for jazz. But I could easily see this issue coming up for other genres that have endless subgenres that are certainly not meaningless. There is a reason many genres have subgenres, because at a certain point they really don't all fit under one generic category. I agree that Benny Goodman albums and Miles Davis albums both belong at Category:Jazz albums. But Benny Goodman played swing, and Miles Davis played some really out there stuff. The advice I am giving here is twofold: As a jazz fan, I look by subgenres for music. To a "normal" person as you put it, they aren't even likely to look at the jazz album categories. They don't listen to it, so why would they. But for someone who likes free jazz, it becomes handy for them to be able to find a category like Category:Free jazz albums. What makes such a category useless, however, is how the guidelines governing how albums can be listed in it. Apparently I can't directly list an album as hard bop, but instead MUST create Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums. This is a HEADACHE. It takes too long, it doesn't make sense, and there is an easier way. There has to be an easier way. So I guess I am proposing this only for jazz albums, but I can't imagine this has not come up before concerning other genres. I just want the encyclopedia to be accurate. (Mind meal 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- Regardless of musical subgenres (which are not the original topic of this section IMHO), I would also consider it very useful if album articles would use a naming scheme of "Album Title (Artist album)". That way you have the artist information easily at first sight when finding an album article in a category. BNutzer 21:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- And moving articles could indeed happen over time in my view - by editors who consider it useful ... BNutzer 21:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless of musical subgenres (which are not the original topic of this section IMHO), I would also consider it very useful if album articles would use a naming scheme of "Album Title (Artist album)". That way you have the artist information easily at first sight when finding an album article in a category. BNutzer 21:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I know I'd start the second there is a green light. (Mind meal 21:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- Article naming and categorization are separate issues and should stay that way. If there is no naming conflict the article should have the most straightforward title as per WP:Disambiguation. I'm afraid that I'm unable to provide any alternative to resolve the problem, though. Jogers (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- So what exactly does an artist name take away from a title? Clarity? Disambiguation rules surely were not intended to obstruct clarity. This is a WP:ALBUMS issue, and if we decide we need to title albums in this way we don't need WP:Disambiguation's blessing. We just need consensus. I still don't understand how an artist's name in a title detracts from anything. All it does is inform people. Why is it again we should not do this? Because the rules and guidelines never envisioned this? Is that it? The most straightforward album title WOULD include the artist name, as has been pointed out here already. The problem is the current way we title albums is NOT straightforward, for when they are categorized they are usless. I don't know what to do here. I've gone down the gambit of options, only to be told it is impossible because the rules say no for every idea. I mean my God. Doesn't that say something to you. Even you acknowledge a problem, but you act like we are helplessly stranded here. The rules are only as good as their usefulness, and the current methods aren't working. Wouldn't you like to see the artist info next to every single album? Or do you like just clicking random albums? I guess we are different, i aim my edits toward the end user. I don't worry about if it fits into some rule that could not foresee a conflict. When problems arise, we should fix them. Not let "rules" stand in the way of a fix. (Mind meal 22:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- Benefit We allow users to immedietely know who made an album when browsing by categories.
- Downside A guideline gets changed in a special instance where a clear problem has arisen. Is that a downside? (Mind meal 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- (Hopefully I won't get the edit conflict this time) For example it would make album articles harder to search for unless a redirect was created for each page and harder to link from other articles. It would be better to find a solution independent of article naming. Jogers (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Editors learn by example I've found here at Wikipedia, and if all articles currently out there were moved it would soon become obvious to other that this is the standard. I don't see any other feasable way to do this. I've yet to see alternatives offered even. If a page is moved, a redirect from the former name is automatic anyway. After that, it is just a matter of getting people in the habit of naming titles in this way. As for search, half the time albums don't come up anyway when searched because they already have (album) or whatever else for disambiguation. I mean if it is a close enough match the album will still come up, but this time with the artist name! They will know instantly if it was what they were looking for. (Mind meal 22:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- Please don't do this. The move being proposed is contrary to much Wikipedia precedent regarding disambiguation — the article title is simply not a good place for categorical information.
It is exceptionalism to presume jazz albums present a unique problem which can only be fixed by presumptive disambiguation — this is certainly not the case. Many different (and conflicting) naming schemes can be proposed to satisfy various specialized "database query" interests. Problems this poses:
- Only one scheme can be applied per any set of articles, so only one interest can be addressed.
- It complicates article naming.
It is also contrary to official policy:
- Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles.
- Naming conventions: Album titles and band names
Please turn back. A less disruptive solution is needed to address the abovementioned categorization concerns.
Good places to inquire about categorization display functionality would include Wikipedia talk:Categorization and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. / edgarde 00:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Using categories such as Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums (Artist+Style+"albums") is a more sensible (and much less disruptive) approach to the problem you want to fix. Eventually, some artist categories would contain only subcategories. / edgarde 01:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh jazz albums are not exceptional in this regard, your whole system is retarded. I was just trying to get anything I could. edgarde! Have you even tried doing the Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums route? Seriously. Have you even tried. That has been considered "overcategorization" anyway; when I started doing THAT even, people whined. How in God's name is moving a title that will have the previous title redirect to the new title disruptive? There is NO WAY TO WORK ON ALBUMS PERIOD, is what everyone is saying. Nobody here has given a doable recommendation on how to solve this. Artist + style +albums is absolutely insane. You must create sometimes 5 or 6 unique categories for every artist. And you say that is most sensible? Come off it man! This is a WP:ALBUMS issue, and is not for other projects. Screw it man. I give up again. Later on albums. Keep up the below par work. It was like talking to an orchestra of dolls, truly.(Mind meal 15:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
- PS: More than half of albums, absolutely more than half, are categorized incorrectly because of the asinine way these category rules are written. Do you not even see that? They either belong at Category:Jazz albums if they are grouped together under something like Category:John Coltrane albums, or they do not belong there AT ALL. And yet look at how many are listed there like that anyway. Look at any category, and you tell me it isn't that way. So every category functions incorrectly, and album are completely disorganized....but you are TELLING ME that I'm the crazy person? No you are the crazy one. I've come up with many methods, all shot down. Nothing makes ANYONE happy, and yet the same problem persists on and on and on and on and on. Like I said. I'm done with this project. Nobody seems to get the magnitude of this at all. There is no point in this discussion anymore, as now we neeed two otherr projects in on this crap. (Mind meal 15:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
- Nobody said you are crazy. Please stay cool and assume good faith. Jogers (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think your last point hit on the crux of the whole problem. It is as I have said before - the problem is not (necessarily) that the categorization is messed up, but that the current categorization is misused. If we create new cats then logically (and unfortunately) they will be misued as well. If the time we are spending discussing here we instead spent re-cat-ing those miscat-ed albums much of the prob would be solved. (Sampm 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
- Nobody said you are crazy. Please stay cool and assume good faith. Jogers (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sure that much could be said. But it doesn't change the fact that Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums X every artist album out there is a crazy way to do this. You have to create a new set of categories for each artist. Some albums fall literally into 5 or more genres. That means just 1 album could need five special categories for it, just to be categorized correctly. When we could just have a "hard bop" albums category, and directlty place the album in the hard bop category and include the name in the title. It is not practical creating categories like Category:Bonnie Raitt jazz albums, because it may only ever be populated with one album. That is just ridiculous. And this is a problem that reaches across all genres.It simply makes no sense, and we must be able to find a better way. This is not doable on a grand scale. If we moved an album title to include artist info, i could do that 100 albums to ten compared to the other method proposed. Probably more. It isn't plauasable doing Category:ZZ Top Hip Hop albums, it just is not. Just try it yourselves for just 10 albums, and make sure you reference those genres to know you are doing it correctly. And then you come back here, and you see if you still think the alternative proposed is even possible in the real world.(Mind meal 15:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
- WP:ALBUMS opener:
"WikiProject Albums is an organization of Wikipedians dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of all kinds of musical albums. We seek ways of simplifying album pages so users can get the basic information fast, creating high-quality new pages, ensuring a standardized format and make articles as informative as possible." That is rich. (Mind meal 16:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
- I have made a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz to broaden the scope of this discussion. (Mind meal 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
At the moment I'm thinking a discographical list (whether part of an article, or a stand-alone list) is a better and easier way to both maintain and find this kind of information. Additionally, a list can include albums that don't have articles, something a category can't do. As far as jazz goes, there are many, many, many more jazz records than there are Wikipedia articles about jazz records. I suspect this holds true on other musical genres. My $0.02. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- So for some reason other projects realize we can make something like Category:Jazz musicians by genre which encompasses subgenres, but WP:ALBUMS cannot come up with a way to do the same in a simple manner? The list idea does not solve anything concerning [[WP:ALBUMS}] inability to address this issue. The problem will still persist. When albums belong in a subgenre, they should be categorized in that subgenre. Why is this a difficult concept to understand? WP:ALBUMS seems ultimately uninterested in having subgenres. That is what i am hearing. I thought that this project would embrace subgenres. I mean, we are dealing with albums of music! I believe firmly that if we cannot clear this up, then WP:ALBUMS has demonstrated its incompetancy and general antipathy toward categorizing artist albums correctly. End of story. (Mind meal 19:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC))