This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
I am changing the track credits yet again since AMG has them wrong. If you have any doubts, go refer to your copy of the album and you will find that the album credits which I have uploaded are accurate. Don't change them unless you mean to prove that we are taking AMG's word over the album booklet itself.
Limaj daas (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are taking an independent secondary reliable source over a primary source affiliated with the band. Also, if you plan to put writing credits in the tracklist template, don't add them to the "note" attribute, add them to the writing credit attribute per song. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The policy of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources you are referring to should be taken in proper context. We're not talking about a subjective, analytical matter in which a primary sources' biases may be of concern and the need for a more objective secondary source arises. We are talking about something as objective as credits. There is no way that AMG has an artist's credits more right than the artist themselves.
Quoting wikipedia's own policy: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."
As credits from the album booklet are a "straightforward, descriptive statement" which can be easily verified, they can and should be used here. Secondary sources are used for analytic purposes. There is hardly anything to analyze in credits. Therefore, I suggest sticking to the primary source.
If you would like to take up this issue with someone who is well-versed in Wikipedia policy, by all means please do.
Also, with regards to my use of the "note attribute": Please familiarize yourself with the examples in the template guidelines. You will find my use of the "note" attribute justified.
Well, I still disagree with both your points, but in the interests of avoiding an edit war, you can have it your way. Would it really hurt though to put the writing credits in the writing credits column, where they belong (and look FAR better than using the "note" attribute)? If we're already using the template, then let's use it to its full extent. Otherwise, I'm not sure the template is even necessary, as we have all the track titles at one far end, and all the song lengths at the other far end, with a bunch of white-space in between. It might as well just be an ordered list, with the different writing credits added using <small> text. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
