Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 58

It looks like

I've submitted a bot request, at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Updating links from album articles to AllMusic. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, here's a pleasant surprise. It looks like the old links are redirecting to the new links on AllMusic now. I guess they used to do that before, and then it stopped working. But would seem that they fixed this at their end. So, that's cool. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Good day!
My question is regarding whether i can include sales from specific chart (summed from several years).
About the chart:

@

Gaon Music Chart, this should only be applied when adding units on a month-by-month or year-by-year basis, and should never be combined. Its year-end chart calculates domestic shipments minus returns and this is not reflected on the monthly charts, which can sometimes lead to lower year-end numbers when the monthly charts add to a higher album count. ℯxplicit

02:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I have requested a peer review of the article Black Panther (soundtrack) that I am hoping to nominate for GA soon. I am specifically looking for any comments that users may have regarding the scope and structure of the article. If any member of this project would like to take a look at the article and contribute their thoughts to this process then that would be awesome. The review page can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Black Panther (soundtrack)/archive1. Thanks guys, adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that website can qualify as a reliable source anymore. I tried to use some "UG Team" reviews as sources for a few Wiki articles, but they have still been reverted. Do you think there's still some things reliable about that Ultimate-Guitar.com, or should it really move to the list of unreliable sources? This might lead to another serious debate, so before you decide your answer, please take your time....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to provide more context here. Why have you changed your mind, and did people provide reasons for reverting you? Sergecross73 msg me 10:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing the reversion of this edit [1] is something like what SirZPthundergod9001 has in mind. Richard3120 (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

As they also gave no reason on their reverting, I’ve restored the source, and currently see no reason to revaulate our stance unless/until someone presents a reason to challenge our prior consensus on it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The ratings box should be kept to ten reviews max. So how do we decide which reviews to include and which to exclude?

Some publications feel more important than others. Rolling Stone, Pitchfork and NME feel like important opinions to include, for example. And probably major newspapers like the LA Times and the Guardian. But I'm basing that purely on gut instinct. Is there any consensus about this?

Relatedly, an editor has just added the

Your instinct is in keeping with advice I've seen on this topic. Go with the more recognized sources before going with smaller sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 11:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they considered the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to be a "better" publication than Muzik, which was the review they bumped off the table, that's a very subjective opinion - Muzik may have been a publication more focused on dance and electronic music, but in Kid A's case that's probably relevant. And it was a widely-distributed national music magazine, not a regional newspaper from another country. (Although if I remember to look up the Q review next time I'm in the UK, that would probably be considered more important than either of the two sources above, and take precedence in the table.) Richard3120 (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

talk

) 13:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that on the World_Domination_(Band-Maid_album) page, it listed two videos that were released with the album, but didn't list the video for Daydreaming, which was released before the album, as that song was released as a single before being included. The talk page doesn't allow for talk, so this is as close as I could get. Dennis M. Myers (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "The talk page doesn't allow for talk" – I don't see any block preventing comment there. Richard3120 (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add an extra column to the tracklist on

No, I can't see it either – it looks like the only way to have two columns is for one of them to have the fixed title "Writer", "Music" or "Lyrics", none of which are suitable for your purpose. Richard3120 (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Damn. Thanks for investigating, though.

talk

) 14:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@

Popcornduff: and @Richard3120:. It can't be done with a track listing table (I think) but it can be done with an ordinary table. I have done a draft and posted it over at Talk:I Might Be Wrong: Live Recordings. Feel free to use or discard according to your agreement. --Richhoncho (talk

) 20:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 06:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@

Popcornduff:. Check out WP:Tables for more advice. I'm certainly no expert, but have done a few basic tables before. --Richhoncho (talk

) 11:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi all. Currently working on Wings (Little Mix song) and was wondering if there are any musicians part of the project who can help analyze sheet music of the song? I already have the time signature, key signature, bpm, vocal range etc... but was hoping someone will pick up on something interesting such as a key change, the song structure, where the high note takes place and so on. I have the sheet music and can e-mail it to whoever is willing to assist. Thank you Nightclubbing 09:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That would be

original research by us, and not acceptable on Wikipedia. You need to find independent reliable sources that discuss the features you are asking about, not Wikipedia editors. Richard3120 (talk

) 19:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If the sheet music shows a key change then you can report the sheet music shows a key change. It will also show the format; verse, chorus, bridge etc There is also some WP software to enable you to create a couple of bars of topline (melody into the article). This question might have been answered better over all

WP:Songs. --Richhoncho (talk

) 11:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: thanks for providing a better answer than I did - I think I misunderstood the question as 'do Wikipedia editors find anything they deem interesting about the song structure'. One question, though: it may be that Nightclubbing has an original print version of the sheet music, but of the online sites, are there ones that have been deemed reliable/unreliable for the purpose of providing sheet music? Richard3120 (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sheet music is always inaccurate, it is at best a guide how to play a piece of music and if you played it, you would recognise the tune, and little else. This is because you can't put all the nuance of audio on a piece of paper. Then you might have a simple piano arrangement for a complex guitar song, again, it has to be an approximation. As long as Nightclubbing is using an authorised source (i.e. authorised by the music publishers of the song) it should be accurate enough for WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I bought the sheet music from Musicnotes.com. It was published by

Sony/ATV Music Publishing. I have done a composition in my sandbox (User:Nightclubbing/sandbox) -it's the second composition. Richhoncho are you able to assist me? Should I rather ask at WP:SONGS? Nightclubbing

13:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you have all the bases covered. Good to see somebody actually concerned with the song, rather than only the chart performance and what the artist said... --Richhoncho (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Just want to check something: in the infobox's Recorded parameter, am I right in saying we should only include dates or a date span that reflect when music that appears on the released album was recorded? In other words, not a date for when sessions might have started but did not yield any recordings that appear on the album.

I take this to be as logical as, say, the name(s) included under Producer or the style(s) under Genre – in that, there be a producer that's omitted because their contribution didn't find its way onto the album (eg Denny Cordell on Petty & the Heartbreakers' Southern Accents), or an initial version of an album (later re-recorded) might be assigned a genre that's different from the official release (Dylan's Blood on the Tracks perhaps, which was far sparser and more folky originally). Same for Studio, when sessions at one location didn't produce anything that appears on the actual album.

So, I'm thinking about the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: sessions began on 24 November 1966, but not only did nothing from the first couple of dates find its way onto the released version of that first song, "Strawberry Fields Forever", but the song didn't end up on the album at all. Meaning, to my mind, that the infobox should give 6 December – the earliest date for when a piece of the released album's music was recorded. Does this tally with everyone else's approach? JG66 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The infobox should be a summary of the article's content. As long as there is no original research in supplying the content in the infobox, and it's a correct summary of the article, and if there are dates, producers, or other content (I know of albums where recording was started while under contract to one label but they dropped the act before the album's release) that are not germane to the final release, they do not need to be included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I’ve always included all known times of recording, but I’ve rarely had situations where they definitively say “nothing from this session was used”. I’ve never really given it much thought though, as they’re so frequently filled with unsourced/unverified dates anyways. I’ve merely put what I could source and kept moving. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both. No, this example is clear-cut and well-supported by the sources. (Oh, and yes, Walter, I was thinking of possible issues with Label also.) JG66 (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, The two album pages mentioned in the subject line both have citations for using a single source. However, the pages mention very few if any copies exist. Because of their rare status, I think these sorts of releases should have a potential exemption.

-Clegg — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0rp0ralclegg (talk • contribs) 02:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

There are no exemptions.

Hotgun (album) and Made from Plate still need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk

) 02:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@C0rp0ralclegg: There are rare albums that have sources (e.g. Once Upon a Time in Shaolin). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Could I please get a few additional voices added to the discussion at Talk:After All These Years (Brian & Jenn Johnson album)? A {{POV}} template was added because the album reviews are too glowing and effusive for the editor's liking. No sources to counter them have been offered to help provide balance. The editor has offered complaints that because it's a "Christian" album, that there is a vested interest in the review sites to provide positive reviews and insinuation that the original editor was in a CoI when writing the article. Again, please respond there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Would a body building website be an acceptable and reliable source for music genre's? Some editor is using this as a source on certain album and song articles to establish genre's. Are body building mags and their editors knowledgeable enough to be considered reliable? Robvanvee 05:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The author is not stated. Therefore no credentials of the author can be found. That's already a strike against so I didn't bother to see what the editorial guidelines were for the site or do any other investigation. I'd say not reliable when it comes to genres. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 11:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The issue whether to continue including MusicBrainz, and similar, IDs in {{Authority control}} is being discussed, again; this time at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: authority control. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Both of them are extensions of record labels and neither appear to have an "about" page.

It's always good to know what you'd like to use it for to determine whether it is reliable.

This is, in effect, an about us for The Fader: https://www.thefader.com/2015/09/29/fader-oral-history-100

They were first a print magazine, then an online publication. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The definition of "reliable source" in a lot of these discussions seems to be "did the writers write somewhere else first?" So, with that in mind, Bandcamp's blog seems to attract professional writers. A standout for me is seeing Jon Wiederhorn's byline dozens of times. He's arguably one of the biggest rock/metal music journalists still going, with approaching 30 years of experience at Rolling Stone, MTV, Revolver, Yahoo, Guitar World, Vice, Loudwire. He has also published a small handful of books. I'm honestly surprised no one has created a page for him here yet. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm involved with a dispute at

I became aware earlier today that

These are just the names I picked out of their features section because I felt they crossed some minimum (but arbitrary) threshold of notability or "name recognition"; they have interviewed many other artists who are not as famous as these ones. Indeed, some of these artists were far more obscure when TMT interviewed them; Grimes was starting to become well-known in 2012, but certainly not on the same scale that she is today. Some artists that I skipped over may become more famous in the years to come, when their interviews with TMT may be seen as historically significant insight into their early work.

• In a Google Books search (link isn't working but you can easily search "Tiny Mix Tapes" in quotes on Google Books), TMT is cited in a few books by music scholars and other writers. Again, they're not a central hub or mainstream outfit, but they are reasonably trustworthy within the field of underground/alternative music. —
  talk
  23:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not shocked to find out that Wikipedia adjudged this source unreliable; consensus operates poorly here all the time. But it is high time for it to
  change. TMT is an independent review site; I cite it all the time. There's no good reason not to consider its reviews as substantial for establishing notability as anything by e.g. Popmatters, Drownedinsound, etc. Chubbles (talk
  ) 01:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Consensus can absolutely change. But you need to give a reason why it should. It’s baffling that an experienced editor like yourself would hinge your argument on “I cite it a lot” and “other stuff exists”. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• I agreed with
  Brandt Luke Zorn, I was never a fan of the idea that TMT should be classified as a unreliable source. My reason for removing the website off of Wikipedia because I was following the guidelines. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk
  ) 20:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, you failed to advance a valid reason in the last discussion about this, and your current comment doesn’t either. Do you have any any stance on this website beyond personally liking it? Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Im seeing a lot of complaints being thrown at the prior discussions, and a lot of vague agreements along the lines of support, but can someone (briefly) give the reasons why it’s reliable, in a way that can be reconciled with Wikipedia policy? Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  My post isn't a complaint; I do think some of the concerns raised in previous discussions are valid and worth addressing, which is why I didn't just quote the brief rationale at the list of unreliable sources, but also presented all of the reasons given in prior discussions. But the valid concerns can be addressed by using TMT only where it is contextually appropriate. "Started as a self-published Geocities page, run by non-professional enthusiasts, not writers with credentials":

  talk

  03:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • • Again, this argument is centered almost entirely around defending its criticisms of it being unreliable, without arguing why it’s actively reliable.You haven’t established on what grounds it’s a reliable source. Is there a reason beyond “RS’s cite it sometimes”? Do they have established staff with credentials? Editorial oversight? Editorial policy? What about the source itself that makes it an RS? Sergecross73 msg me 04:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  Read over

  talk

  04:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Reliable" - Or rather, notable enough to be used for citing critical opinion. Their editor-in-cheif Marvin Lin has contributed a
  talk
  ) 06:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. This is the sort of commentary I find convincing. Sergecross73 msg me 11:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• I will have to agree with Dan56's assessment as being reliable. Whenever I have read TMT's reviews or articles, they have appeared to be professionally written to me, however, its just that their whole appearance gives an aura of a blog like website with hipster posting. However, their staff being notable enough and with credibility gives me hope that we can actually list TMT as a reliable source for music articles. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• I think it's a totally reliable source for music reviews. Just as reliable as Drowned in Sound, The Quietus, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Reliable: Dan56 has pointed out editor Marvin Lin's credentials above, but the rest of the editorial team appear to have solid writing credentials too: Dan Smart has a degree in Creative Writing and is a poet and studio engineer, according to his website [37], and Justin "JSpicer" Spicer and Grant "Gumshoe" Purdum both have journalism degrees, going by their LinkedIn profiles – Purdum is also an editor at the Corpus Christi Caller-Times newspaper in his home town, and has written for The Wire and The A.V. Club. "Ze Pequeño", aka Sean Brady, was a former contributor at PopMatters [38]. Several of the other contributors appear to have writing backgrounds, whether as novelists, poets, art critics or even grant proposal writers (which may be nothing to do with music, but you still have to be able to write clearly). Behind the pseudonyms and humour, there seems to be enough there to convince me that this is a professional writing team. Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, I no longer object with evidence like this. I don’t understand the indifference on the topic earlier in the year contrasting with this suggested vigor the community has found on it within these last 24 hours, but I’m happy we’ve got a more solid consensus on it now regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Reliable. Even if their journalism is not the most accurate due to the vocabulary as it as not as formal as other websites, the interviews are still good to go. I mean otherwise, artists wouldn't grant more interviews and that is not the case. Every source that has interviews with artists should be accepted even if it's the only reliable way of using said site. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• A response was solicited from me on my talk page. I have watched the discussion and I have no opinion on the source itself. While we have local consensus to accept it as a source, and we could even put it on our list of sources (with any caveats that would seem appropriate), we still need to have a few voices at RSN to get the decision reviewed. I would say that based on the discussion here, that should be fairly straightforward though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• I noticed that the user DepressedPer apparently spent much of the last three days removing Tiny Mix Tapes references and quotations from over a hundred article pages, claming it was an unreliable source. This user has not participated in the discussion here, but the removals started a couple of days after this discussion began. Chubbles (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Chubbles: DepressedPer has restore the website back in those articles after I leave a message in their talk page. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• @
  Brandt Luke Zorn: @IndianBio: @Koavf: @Richard3120: @Sergecross73: @Dan56: @MarioSoulTruthFan: Since mostly everybody has agreed that TMT is a reliable source, should it be removed off the list of unreliable sources? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk
  ) 18:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, please. Reliable for reviews and music-related news/interviews (tho they probably just quote original sources for news). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I am unsure if this has been discussed before or not. I often see this in articles (LP example, CD example), and in the past made the same mistake. Perhaps this stemmed from the impression created by our era's digital music format, conflated with the formats of the past, but such examples are not faithful to the numbering format of the original release; each LP side begins with the track number one, as does each disc of a CD. I think someone here eventually made me aware I was misnumbering tracks in articles, so I would like to encourage more to be aware and make an effort to fix such occurrences.

It is mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Track listing, but then the example gets it wrong! EddieHugh (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Haha. I have fixed it.

talk

) 21:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

My fix has been reverted.

talk

) 00:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it came about because CDs were often reissued with extra tracks, and it was in order to avoid adding another track listing which is near identical to the LP version apart from the extra tracks at the end. Otherwise you get track listings of "Side one: tracks 1-5, Side two: tracks 1-5" and then "track 11" as the bonus track, which looks odd. Is there any easy way around this, without having to separately list LP and CD versions for every album? Richard3120 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

An example of how it gets complicated, using a very well known album. Synchronicity by the Police added a bonus track onto the cassette and CD versions. Instead of just noting this, as in the current version of the article, we would have to have three separate track listings - (1) side one, tracks 1-6, side two, tracks 1-4 for the LP; (2) side one, tracks 1-6, side two, tracks 1-5 for the cassette; and (3) tracks 1-11 for the CD. Richard3120 (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Listing the original LP and an extra complete listing for CD with bonus track would be fine by me.

talk

) 23:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your assessment that the numbering system on two-sided LPs/cassettes should be different from a single-sided CD, just pointing out that it could result in some very long track listing sections in album articles. But just to be clear, you would be OK with having three separate track listings in the Synchronicity article, for example? I know you said you would be OK with two for LP and CD, but I don't think we can ignore the cassette version: in the UK in 1983 this would probably have been the best-selling of the three formats. Richard3120 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing inaccurate about saying that the third track in an album is track #3. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It is inaccurate if the track number is listed below the heading "Disc two". Because it is not the third track of disc two.

talk

) 23:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be best if the album articles used the same track numbers as the ones on the actual albums. The convention that's usually used, on the albums themselves and elsewhere, is to start the track numbering with #1 for each disc of an LP or a CD. Therefore, if disc one of an album has two tracks, the first track of disc two would be #1, not #3. Or if a particular album does it differently, the corresponding article could reflect that. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

In general, restarting the numbering is the correct way to do it. If the metadata on a CD or track numbering provided on an LP differ from the norm, that would be a rare exception where we'd probably defer to the release's specific numbering method. I can't think of an example when this exception would apply... some hidden tracks, perhaps?

Incidentally, even digital music has a way to deal with the phenomenon of track numbers restarting on a new disc. Most standard formats (mp3, FLAC, etc.) include metadata not just for track number, but also disc number (as well as the total number of tracks and the total number of discs). Using the example above, the metadata for the song "Track 2" would be track number 2 / 2 and disc number 1 / 2, while "Third Time's a Charm" would be track number 1 / 1 and disc number 2 / 2. Even modern streaming formats recognize this: if you have a desktop version of the Spotify app, go to

talk

00:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

In general, with vinyl recordings, both schemes are used but the more common scheme is that song numbering is restarted per-side, so you will have a side B, song 1 (as can be seen here. We should do what RSes state the track numbers to be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

So how would you list the tracks on

original research to say that there are x songs in such-and-such order. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 02:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

When reviewing the album, how did reliable sources refer to the song numbers?

I agree that

WP:CALC

allows us to state that there are N songs on an album and thereby number continuously.

I also recognize that when I pull an album out of its dust jacket, and I see side b, track 2 on the label, I know where I'm dropping my needle to hear that song. And when I would write about that track, in relation to the other songs on that side, I would number them Side B 1. "The First Song"/2. "Song the Second"/3. "..."/4. "Track Four". Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

And when reliable sources refer to the "tenth" track on Led Zeppelin's fourth album but the album sleeve calls it "Side 2 #5" and the digital streaming version of it just calls it track 10, then what? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There are only eight tracks on that album, but if the last track of the second side of a 10-track album were the 5th track of that side, it would also be the 10th track of the album—there's no contradiction there. My second daughter is also my third child—there's nothing strange about saying it either way. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If we have the track listing itself to verify the track listing, why should any other source matter?

talk

) 03:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Because, as I pointed out: there are two different track listings for the same album. Maybe this was unclear. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If you're talking about a special case, then it should be sorted out at that article's talk page. The default otherwise should be to list tracks as they are listed on the album, which should trump 3rd-party sources in all but special cases. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not talking about a special case: many, many albums are streaming on the Internet. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The album sleeve is not the only thing identifying the track; the groove of each side of the record itself has visible track bands delineating the songs.

talk

) 03:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, why do we even retain the multiple side/disc format if we are not being faithful to their respective enumeration? Why are there still pseudoheadings saying Side one or Disc two if we are to present an album's songs as a totality (more like "This entire album's songs")?

talk

) 03:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

What you're saying is that there are "many, many" special cases. Yes. Yes, there are. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"So how would you list the tracks on An American Treasure where there are three formats and there is no way to make a single compatible listing?" I wouldn't say that a continuous track listing arises to the level of an WP:OR concern. If I came across a continuous, undivided track listing for a multi-disc album, most of the time I wouldn't bother to correct it; it's fine, it's "good enough". But when crafting a style guide, we're not contemplating "good enough", but rather what is most correct or proper. As far as I'm concerned, the track listing at the "Deluxe Version" of An American Treasure as it currently exists is fine, I don't have any problem with it, but if it went to GA or FA I'd expect the track listing to be formatted correctly/properly. An uninterrupted list of 63 songs is a little long and would probably look better broken into sections by disc, but: not my circus, not my monkeys.

Ordinarily, there isn't a need to make multiple track listings for each release format if the order and number of songs is the same across releases. It's redundant info and better suited to Discogs. If an album came out on multiple formats simultaneously (implying that it was originally released in the CD era or later), the thing to do is pick one format and list them that way, probably defaulting to CD, since CD metadata and digital metadata are almost always identical (see Mellon Collie example above). A case where multiple track listings of releases across different formats really is necessary would be The Wonderful and Frightening World Of..., because the album's track listing went through multiple iterations with different numbers of songs, even before any deluxe/special edition/"expanded" reissues: there are three very different sequences of songs that could all properly be called "the album The Wonderful and Frightening World Of...".

Also the style guide won't account for every situation, it's just stating general principles. There will always be, per Curly Turkey, "special cases". Minor variations that don't exactly conform to one version of the album are OK; for example, at The Beatles (album)#Track listing, the track listing is sectioned by LP side, but the numbering reflects the two discs of the CD release (1–13 for sides one and two, not A1, A2, etc.). This is a synthesis of the LP and CD versions, but it makes sense: it combines the original historical info (when it came out, this release was divided into LP sides) and the current context (this is how you are most likely to encounter this album, given that it is a time after the 1980s). I don't have any problem with this minor "inaccuracy", which in this case is really more like a heightened accuracy. (That said, there is no conceivable reason to list "Good Night" as track no. 30.)

I'm really not sold on this idea of looking at secondary sources to see how many tracks they say something has. You're liable to find cases where you'll encounter conflicting info between two (or more) sources' descriptions, and a reviewer's description of a single song in passing is not an attempt to prescribe or impose a track listing—plus, what if they just get it flat-out wrong, like if someone writes "'Seasons of Man' is the fourth song on Close to the Edge"? More fundamentally, this method confuses quantity (cardinal number) with numbering (ordinal number). It is simultaneously true that there are 13 songs on Sgt. Pepper's, total, and that the final song was track B6.

(Btw, totally off topic but since this is my first time interacting with you,

talk

03:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@

Brandt Luke Zorn: For An American Treasure, what discs are you talking about? Again, it seems like editors are giving "hot takes" here but maybe I'm just not explaining myself clearly: how would you format this album to show which songs are on which discs? Not hypothetically but can you actually show me how you would do it? (P.S.: Thanks for that! User:Jujutacular deserves a lot of praise as well.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 03:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)