Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 63

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65→Archive 70

Stereogum

While on Discord, @Lee Vilenski: asked if Stereogum was a reliable source or not. I learnt that Stereogum is not mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. So, I thought a discssuion should be made to determine whether Stereogum is reliable or not. I notice that other SpinMedia publications, such as Spin and Vibe, are deemed reliable. Would this be the same for Stereogum? I'm also pinging @Moneytrees: and @Sergecross73: as they were part of the brief Discord discussion. I'd appreciate more comments than the four of us who briefly talked on Discord. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no objective reasoning, but subjectively, I trust Stereogum as a independent news source, and feel it is on the same quality scale as Loudwire, Blabbermouth.net, Louder, RockSound, and Spin. Not as good as Pitchfork, PopMatters, or Billboard, but better than Drowned by Sound. I support calling it a reliable news source. Mburrell (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
In the discussion, I had basically been saying that I've never done a deep dive on it in the past, but that I've used it over the years in articles and AFDs without any issue. I had used it initially because I had thought it was already on the list. Sergecross73 msg me 04:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Me too. I've used it in a few GAs, I think. It's one of those sources, like Louder/Classic Rock, Pitchfork and PopMatters (to take some of the examples mentioned above), that I'd never think to check whether it appears on our list. Ironically, I'm sure I've seen Stereogum cited here in the past to support notability of another source. JG66 (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I rarely use it, but only because I still think of it as a circa-early 2000s blog. But I consider it reliable--as one example, The Week has used it in their album roundups in the same way they've used Spin, The New York Times, Pitchfork... Caro7200 (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

how to create album page?

I have gathered information on KIKI by Kiana Ledé. How do I start the article?

(PopFreakNena) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PopFreakNena (talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@PopFreakNena: Start by reading WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM to determine if the album article qualifies for creation. If it does, work through Help:Your first article. Come back here or leave a {{help}} entry on your own talk page if you run into problems. Best of luck. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Also read Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice which gives you advice how to structure the page. Richard3120 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Enta da Stage for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 23:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposition

All songs promoted on Spotify's Today's Top Hits should be considered singles (or promotional singles at least). Record labels pay for that spot. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Are Metal Injection and Metal Sucks even considered reliable sources anymore?

A user removed two references from those websites in the Vektor (band) article, saying that they're "full of "claims" "allegedly" "seemingly" and "appears to be" this is NOT reliable and most certainly not grounds to disregard BLP". Are Metal Injection and Metal Sucks really unreliable now or did the user either do the wrong thing, or the right thing but for a different reason? Thanks....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There's been no change in consensus in a general sense, though that said, we can still reject individual instances of source use if they say something controversial/wrong/BLP violating. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

UPFI certifications

Discussion about the usage of UPFI certifications in albums' pages was started here. You are welcome to participate. --Muhandes (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Track listing width customization

I brought up a new idea for the tracklisting template that should allow width customization. i personally think this is a good idea but would appreciate more input. You can find the discussion here.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Youngblood Brass Band albums

Would someone mind taking a look at Youngblood Brass Band#Albums? Most of the stand-alone articles existing for the albums listed don't seem to meet WP:NALBUM, but this could be a case of WP:NEXIST. The genre of music also might not be something typically covered in more traditional sources for other genre types. It's not even clear whether the band meets WP:NBAND, but I'll ask about that at WT:MUSICIAN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The Center:Level:Roar article already has two reviews from notable publications. Found a JazzTimes review (behind a paywall) for Unlearn, a PunkNews review for Is That a Riot?, and an Irish Times review + a review from The Independent for Pax Volumi. Nothing came up for Live. Places. (It's a live album, those generally get less coverage so I wouldn't expect much). My searches only went three pages deep on Google so there could be more that I missed. I imagine just one reliable source isn't enough for an article, and two is probably still a stretch, but it's a start. I would consider waiting on deleting those pages until someone does a more thorough search, and if nothing else turns up then they can probably all go. QuietHere (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks QuietHere. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Singles not part of the standard edition of an album yet part of its marketing and promotion

A new trend has emerged, in which users are removing singles from infoboxes because they aren't part of every edition of an album. I believe this is disadvantageous to readers and doesn't offer them a correct picture of the marketing and promotion of said albums. Some examples include the following: Romance, where the song "My Oh My" was clearly released as the sixth single as part of its promotional campaign, and doesn't appear on any other album. 1989, where the song "New Romantics" was clearly released as the seventh single from the album campaign and promoted as such. I assume they will also try to remove "Last Dance" and "New Love" from the infobox of Dua Lipa, even though these singles were also, clearly, released as part of the album's promotion. Again, I don't think this sort of revisionism serves the best interest of readers, since these songs are largely remembered as part of these eras in the general public's consciousness. Their exclusion will only confuse them. Whatever is the outcome of this discussion should probably be used to clarify these things at Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles.--NØ 16:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Hey. I would have appreciated a ping, since it’s obvious to both you and me that I was the one who did this. I won’t continue to do this now that it’s under discussion, though. As well, I had been wanting to open up a talk discussion here about this since earlier today when I removed a single from Treat Myself (Meghan Trainor album), so thank you for opening it in advance. They aren't part of every edition of an album: The template doc nor I never said they had to be. "New Romantics" and "My Oh My" were not part of the standard editions, as noted in 1989 (Taylor Swift album)#Track listing and Romance (Camila Cabello album)#Track listing. They were bonus ("MOM") or deluxe ("NR") tracks of re-releases of their parent albums. [The exclusion of the singles] will only confuse them: I agree and disagree at the same time. A lot of things we do confuse readers, such as having MOS:CAPS and not following artist stylization on albums/songs. If you look at the revision history of Betty (Taylor Swift song), you can see that a lot of newer editors change the "Betty" to "betty", as that is how the song is stylized. This reinforces my point that what we do with regards to capitalization does not make sense to readers. But, readers first. Maybe an alternative would be to place the singles in Infoboxes and denote them with {{efn}} notes, similar to the efn notes at Evermore (Taylor Swift album). For "My Oh My", it could be "This song only appeared on physical releases as a bonus track", to mirror what is communicated in the track listing. I agree when you say that we should update the template doc with the result of this discussion. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Doggy54321:, I refrained from pinging since I know you follow this page and I didn't want this to read like a personal attack. "My Oh My" is actually not a bonus track. It has always appeared as the fourth track on the digital standard edition. There was no "re-release". Likewise with 1989, the standard and deluxe were issued on the same day, thus don't constitute a re-release which is the only case where the template doc requires exclusion. Since the template actually doesn't call for exclusion in these cases at all, I would argue we don't need any efn notes. It's just the editors involved that need to understand the correct application of this template. So, I would argue we should keep this distinction based on the release date of a song. So for 1989, we will include "New Romantics" in the infobox. For Romance, we will include "My Oh My". But only omit re-release singles after the original album's release date ("Make You Dance", "Boyfriend", "My Head & My Heart", etc.). Or perhaps the best thing to do would be to defer to reliable secondary sources.--NØ 19:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: Makes sense, thank you. I think your idea of keeping the songs in the Infobox if they were released the same day as the album is great. However, I think it may still be helpful to include efn notes just to say "Only released digitally" or "Only released as part of the deluxe edition", as the songs might not be widely available. For example, Speak Now deluxe edition is not available on Spotify, so for any Spotify readers that come to Wikipedia, it would be helpful for them to know that "Ours" was only on the deluxe. Or, if someone only gets the CD version of Romance, it would be helpful for them to know that "My Oh My" was only released on the digital and LP versions. As well, I agree with the omitting from the Infobox when the singles are released after the standard edition, such as Treat Myself and "Make You Dance". Last but not least, I think deferring to secondary sources would be a good option, but only if there’s a dispute among which singles should be included. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps the best option would be that version-exclusive singles be included in the main infobox with the footnote that User:Doggy54321 is recommending unless said alternate version has its own separate infobox (similar to the infobox Sawayama Remixed has), in which case the exclusive singles should only be listed there. Or would that be too confusing given the inconsistency of it? Either way, if there are exclusive singles for an album, putting them in the main infobox with a footnote seems like a fine move to me. It'd just be a shorthand version of differently-conveyed information from the body of the article, and given that that's generally the purpose of the infobox already, it makes sense to me for it to be included there. QuietHere (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Dead against notes in the infobox. Infobox is for summaries only. I do think the rules on what gets included as a single in the infobox are outdated - they don't take into account digital releases or the recent trends of extending album campaigns with region-exclusive, format-exclusive editions etc. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@QuietHere: Thank you for your comment. If there’s a separate Infobox, I agree that the singles from the re-release should be there and not in the main Infobox. It wouldn’t be too confusing, it would actually be better, as readers would know which singles were from which release. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 14:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree with "against notes in the infobox". As a summary or overview of the article, infoboxes should not be bogged down with excessive details requiring explanatory footnotes. They should "allow readers to identify key facts at a glance"; long lists are for the main body. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Lil-unique1 and Ojorojo – it's not a good idea to fill up the infobox with notes, because it could get very complicated, if releases are different across various regions, and it wouldn't be clear to the average reader what the information is trying to convey. I also agree (and have said in the past) that our guidance on music articles needs revising and updating – for 50 years or more it was clear what was a single or not, and what was a reliable source, but that has all changed drastically over the last ten years with digital releases and streaming, and the disappearance of printed music magazines and the rise of online journalism. Richard3120 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Just a quick question: based on your criteria for including a single, would "Gasoline (Haim and Taylor Swift song)" be a single on Women in Music Pt. III? "Gasoline" was released as part of the expanded edition, released February 18, 2021. WIMPIII standard edition was released June 26, 2020. Because you said but only omit re-release singles after the original album's release date, I’m assuming you would say to not include it, but I’d just like to get clarity. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 13:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey Doggy54321, based on the above discussion "Gasoline" would be excluded from the album article's infobox but Women in Music Pt. III (Expanded edition) would be included as the parent album in the Gasoline article's infobox. However, I'm not seeing any evidence this is a single in the first place, considering there are no separate digital listings, radio release or music video. So in this particular case, this isn't a single at all (yet) in my opinion.--NØ 13:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: Thanks for the clarification, I will implement the changes now. With regards to single status, the song was pushed to Australian radio today, and a source calls it a single. I know The Music Network doesn’t have the best rep on Wikipedia, but an editor emailed TMN and they replied that they actually do push songs to become singles, so I think this constitutes single status. The discussion is at WT:SONG#The Music Network if you would like to chime in. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 13:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
"Gasoline" (feat. Taylor Swift) doesn't appear on the parent album so shouldn't appear in the infobox, however it is clearly a single because it has been released to platforms like streaming and radio separately from the album. Music videos and radio release dates are not necessary/the only indicators that a song is a single. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Streaming services have no separate listing for this song. The only proof so far is a listing on TMN and if we were to trust that source, What Makes a Woman and Cry About It Later would be the respective third and fourth singles from Smile. And I think we all know that wasn't the case so idk.--NØ 15:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • CAITL and WMW were promo singles released in countdown. Apologies I saw Gasoline on spotify without checking the listing. There are examples of "impact day" releases in the Uk when a certain song/instant download has been promoted as a single. I agree, TMN on its own is not enough. Should be supported by another source. WP:DUCK too. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Maybe we just need to defer to reliable sources for this because I agree that WMAW and CAIL are not singles. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source question

Hey all. I was wondering if this review would be considered reliable? The website is Bestclassicbands.com. It doesn't show the lock symbol on Safari so I'm leaning towards no but just wanted to make sure. Thanks! – zmbro (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You know what, I wouldn't write that site off at all – there is a serious amount of proper past journalistic experience there, including the photographers. I'd be interested to see what other Wikipedia editors think about it. (Not sure that 1983–1988 would be my favourite Bowie era, by the way ;-) ). Richard3120 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
His name is not listed among the staff members. On the other hand, his bio at the bottom of the review suggests he's very experienced, and a Google search returns considerable results, including his own portal and some coverage at AllMusic (written by himself, though). So, yeah, I see no reason not to use his reviews. Even the site as a whole seems pretty fine. Victor Lopes Fala!•C 16:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@Victor Lopes: no, but he is listed as a contributor, and his biography states that he has written published books and been editor of magazines himself. And as you say, the site seems fine, it seems to have editorial oversight, and everyone seems to have years, if not decades, of experience in the established music press. Richard3120 (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Awesome sounds great. Thank you both! – zmbro (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Charts for reissues

I have seen in a lot of articles such as Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded and Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection that if an album charts after a reissue is released, it can be considered the reissue charting. Both articles are FA or GA so I think they should be okay to follow but I just wanted to check here first. LOVI33 17:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

We've had a similar discussion about songs that chart again and again, especially Christmas classics such as "All I Want Is You" and Fairytale of New York" which chart every year, and probably will continue to chart every year from now into the foreseeable future. It's not usually such a problem for albums, but you can see for example at Greatest Hits (Queen album) that the chart table can become very confusing. And I don't know what the answer is... if you have just one table, then you can't tell in which year the album peaked (in the case of Queen's Greatest Hits, it was 27 years after the original release, which is notable)... but if you have separate tables for each year, you see it can become a confusing mess. Richard3120 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Being a feature article or good article does not mean it actually meets odd guidelines like the ones here. It usually means there are no spelling errors or odd links, etc. For instance, check the reference section of Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded. {{reflinks}} soe not require responsive width. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Critical reception sections

If an album has received limited reviews of its content (both in terms of number of reviews and the extent of detail, or rather lack of detail, in said reviews i.e. a few lines, to be considered "critical"), would it be wrong to title the section as simply "Reception" instead of "Critical reception"? Or should it be named CR regardless? I'm positive I've seen a comment about this in GA reviews before (either last year or the year prior) tho it would obv be difficult to locate that now, but WP:ALBUMSTYLE doesn't really specify anything like this as far as I can tell. An editor reverted me twice after I changed this page's CR section accordingly. I won't repeat their comments since I linked to the more recent revision w the edit summary of what they said. I don't think they're correct but I'm not about to edit war over something trivial, so I would like some additional opinions for my own clarity.

If it helps, 3 of the 5 articles used for discussion of the album's content+production process are from the same news outlet (Osen) and 2 of them are by the same reporter. The first focuses mainly on a single from the album, and contains only 1 line in its second-to-last pgraph that translates roughly to "Wonho, who has proven excellent musicality in various fields, such as writing, composing, and producing, as well as vocals, will open his second act as a soloist...". The 2nd, mentions which songs he wrote/co-composed and does not provide any sort of "critical" content that I can identify. The 3rd, only has a brief 1-line descrip of the lead single in the 2nd-to-last pgraph, which is also found almost verbatim in the 5th source (Sports Chosun), where there is nothing of substance about the album (chrome's google translation is not the smoothest but the information is easily discernable to see what I'm saying). The Star News ref also mentions similar details for 2 songs (genre+that he wrote lyrics). The only thing I could pick out is in the 2nd-to-last pgraph, "As it is the first album prepared with all the heart and soul, [you] can feel Wonho's various charms...in each song" and "Eight colorful songs, including "Lost In Paradise," clearly reflect his musical concerns". None of this indicates "critical reception", since a lot of the pieces contain almost the exact same content/wording and were most probably based off of press releases from his label. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This sounds more like an argument against the presence of a Reception/whatever you wanna call it section in this article. Whichever name the section is given sounds more like an issue concerning MOS:STYLEVAR (or whichever policy it is that says this is a semantic issue that editors shouldn't worry too much about, I'm pretty sure that exists somewhere). But if the sources aren't really about critical reception of the album in question, or especially if they're just quoting press releases like you suggest, then those refs probably don't belong in that section. And if there aren't any sources to replace them with (I didn't see any on page 1 of Google, but definitely search further than that before making this declaration), then the whole section is unsourced and should probably go. Reception isn't a required section for album articles, is it? QuietHere (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@QuietHere: actually no. I was questioning the naming of a section as "Critical reception"—especially when there's a significant lack of material that qualifies as "critical" per usual standards for an album article—just because this is "...fairly standard, as even if it is a small section...", to quote the editor who rv'd me. We create separate background, release, composition, promotion etc. sections depending on the info available for an album and how much of that falls under said categories. When there's minimal info, some of these are merged together under a blanket heading (which is what I did). We don't create sections just because they're on the MOS, nor do we rigidly stick to heading titles if a modification is more appropriate.
The page has since been updated by other editors and the section is now called "Critical reception and commercial performance", with all of 3 sentences in it (upon closer inspection, the entire article contains a whopping 8 lines of prose including the lead) and a single entry accolade table (I'd prev merged the album's lone award nomination into the section but that was undone and moved to its own section lower down). Surely you see why I felt "Reception" was a better heading. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Carlobunnie: Ohhh, you mean "critical" as opposed to "commercial reception"? If that's it then I see your argument now, and yeah that makes sense. Disregard the semantics part of my above comment then.
If those are the same refs as before that were no good, then I stand by them being removed, or at least the "critical" part of that section being taken out. At the very least, the two parts should probably be in separate paragraphs to distinguish them, since they are covering separate subject matter. Being kept in one section together with the current title might not be the worst thing (A lot of film articles do it that way, even if they split into subsections when they get long enough), even if the header is a little too wordy for my taste. And the table seems excessive if there's only one item, that could be written into one sentence of prose that would probably save a lot of space. QuietHere (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

AllMusic at RSN

Hi, there is a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding the reliability of AllMusic, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Paul Grein

Hi everyone, a question: I've seen Paul Grein's articles from Yahoo has been used in various articles here for the U.S chart performance and sales. He has cited Billboard and Nielsen: examples 1 or 2 to give those sales and chart information. Seems to be the same Paul Grein from Billboard or maybe he's a different person. If not, at least he has been cited by third-party sources as an "authority author": examples 1 or 2. The worried part of his articles, is the "blog" attribution in the urls and that he provided additional information for users questions at a certain time (commonly from 2008-2012 I think) like the "Ask Billboard" sections. I know that many outlets and other "reliable sources" have sections that they call "blogs" per Wikipedia:NEWSBLOG and are ok to use in some cases or circumstances, mainly if its came from "authority authors". I have the impression he fits those acceptable circumstances but not sure 100% so wanna see opinions about him as source and of course, if we can use those references here (and if is neccesary an author attribution, like "According to Paul Grein..."). Thanks in advance, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm certain it's the same person. As he has been working for Billboard for 40 years, and was the person who founded the "Chart Beat" column in the magazine, which provided information on sales and chart performance, I don't think there's any problem in viewing him as a reliable source for this kind of information. Richard3120 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I also agree. Only here to see another opinions. Thanks, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

A quick album title/disambiguation check

I just wanted to do a quick check with the knowledgable folks here before moving an article. I've been expanding The Lilac Time (The Lilac Time album), but I think it needs to be moved to The Lilac Time (album). Currently, that latter page is a redirect to the Pelle Carlberg page, who it seems released an album titled The Lilac Time in 2008. This Carlberg album appears to not be notable enough for its own article though. Since there is only one article about an album called The Lilac Time on Wikipedia currently (the one I've been working on), shouldn't it be located at The Lilac Time (album), with The Lilac Time (The Lilac Time album) as a redirect? Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the correct location. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes... looking at the Pelle Carlberg article, it's doubtful even that is notable, even less his album. But the British band are 100% notable, and so is their album – I remember this getting a decent amount of press at the time in the UK, given Stephen Duffy's previous solo hits. Absolutely certain this would also have been reviewed in NME and Record Mirror, probably in The Face and in British newspapers as well. Richard3120 (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the confirmation, guys. I'll go a head and relocate the article then. Also, thanks for the suggestion of searching for contemporary reviews in the NME, Record Mirror, The Face etc, Richard3120. I'm trying to find more reviews from back in 1987/88, but so far I've only been able to quote the Melody Maker and Time Out. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't see the Pelle Carlberg article, because it wasn't linked. Yes, he is notable. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pelle_Carlberg&diff=1012564391&oldid=820345572 Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Does that mean the article I'm working on shouldn't be moved then? I can't move it myself anyway and will have to put in a request at WP:Requested moves. Surely as the only album with that title on Wikipedia it should still be located at The Lilac Time (album)? If someone creates an article for Carlberg's album in the future, it can always be moved back, right? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
His album of t he same name does not have any reviews, so I don't think that an article will be coming anytime soon, but if one does come, we can deal with disambiguation at that time. You could add a hatnote to your article though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, great. Thanks for your help. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@Kohoutek1138: for information, back issues of those magazines are in the British Library. But I don't think it's reopened yet, and even when it does I expect numbers will be limited. Richard3120 (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: thanks for the tip off. That's really useful. I hadn't ever thought of visiting the British Library for Wiki purposes, but I like the idea of doing that. :) Can't wait for places like that and the London museums to re-open again. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"The album was well received."

In a brief, recent back-and-forth with User:Krächz at Talk:Back to Base X#Verfifcation, a question was posed: If an article contains multiple album reviews with positive assessments/scores, would it be fine to conclude that an album was "well-received" (Or "poorly received", etc., in relevant cases), as is the case in the lead of the Back to Base X article? Or does such a statement constitute original research? Does one need an exact quotation from an external source in order to include that kind of language in an article? QuietHere (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I generally use the phrase if the reviews section resent are generally positive. It's not original research to write an introductory sentence for a paragraph. That said, in times where it's being disputed, you can often default to the summary provided by aggregators like Metacritic too. See this from the music sourcing page on how to handle wording when doing it that way. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I prefer this wording to "mixed to positive reviews", which I see in some articles... by definition, "mixed" means some positive reviews, and some negative reviews, so any use of the word "positive" or "negative" afterwards is just repetition. If the positive reviews outweigh the negative ones, then we can say "generally positive" instead. I agree with Sergecross73, if a reader can see a ratings table and read a selection of unbiased review prose, I don't think it's OR to summarise that in a sentence. Richard3120 (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. We even had the "mixed-to-positive" wording "outlawed" on the Wikiproject Video Games Manual of Style for that same reason, though I'm not aware of any hard consensus on that matter beyond that subject area. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I slightly disagree--I think it's better to go with Serge's Metacritic example than just a blanket statement...I've edited many articles where such statements exist, only to find contrary reviews to render the assertions inaccurate. I think, also, that many editors consider, for example, 2-star reviews (whether out of 4 or 5), or "C"s, to be "poor", when often according to those publications they are actually "fair" or "average". Caro7200 (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Caro7200: oh, totally... I've seen many articles which say "the album received positive reviews", and it's based on one review, from a non-RS. I'm definitely not advocating the use of any kind of general statement in that case, and I tend to remove those statements when I come across them if they aren't backed up by multiple RS. Richard3120 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Go with wording from Metacritic. Unless the phrase "well-received" or "critical acclaim" is notably cited, its WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS as we only include a subset of reviews on Wikipedia. In a lot of cases, articles may also have incomplete coverage so its inaccurate to assume that Wikipedia has the fairest, most accurate or most complete critical coverage of a body of work. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: seeing as Metacritic has only been around since the early 2000s, are you suggesting that no album articles before this time should contain the words "reviews were generally positive" or "the album was universally acclaimed" or similar? Richard3120 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Richard3120 no and you bring up a good point. I did suggest using subsequent coverage. You may find articles from reliable sources where critics talk about a project being received well. I think the word "generally" might help if there isn't a specific source that supports the phrase. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
That's okay, I just wanted clarification of your position. Obviously subsequent coverage would help a lot, but it tends to only be available for big name artists or albums whose reputation has grown over the years... the average album doesn't tend to get revisited for a reappraisal later on. Richard3120 (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Fantano RfC closed

Hi guys, I thought I'd just let you know that the Anthony Fantano RfC has closed: The result is per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The Needle Drop:

There is consensus that additional considerations apply when considering whether the use of The Needle Drop as a source is appropriate. There is currently strong consensus that Anthony Fantano's reviews that are published via The Needle Drop are self-published sources. There is currently rough consensus that Fantano is considered to be an established subject-matter expert as it pertains to music reviews and that these reviews may be used in an article as attributed opinion. However, per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party sources about living people. There is also currently a rough consensus that Fantano's reviews do not always constitute due weight and that discretion should be applied on a case-by-case basis when determining if a review from The Needle Drop is appropriate to include in a given article.

Essentially nothing changes here. While Fantano is no longer blanket banned without secondary sourcing, you are still free to argue that his inclusion in any particular article is undue. Thanks again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeesh. A month of discussion to come to this conclusion? Great, now we get to have an argument every time someone tries to add him, which will inevitably include how that review is somehow an exception and should be used. What a disappointment. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Genre sourcing

Would someone else like to try to explain WP:EXPLICITGENRE and genres in general to BestDJofAllTime (talk · contribs), who thinks that explicit genres in prose is a "crock of crap". I don't seem to getting anywhere with the editor and the repeated addition of genres to a single article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

So he claims to be "more of an expert than anyone else is", but Walter is the one with the massive ego... okaaaaay... Richard3120 (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. I left him a note/warning. Let me know if he continues to be difficult. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks y'all (and I'm not a Southerner, so I don't know if I'm allowed to use that pronoun!). Despite a long explanation about EXPLICITGENRE, the self-described genre expert restored the content again. I pinged Sergecross73 on the talk page, but I'm not going to continue to try to apply GWAR to the edits any longer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
PS: I found it ironic that we finally concluded that we should not use Fantano for genres, and he has better credentials than BestDJofAllTime has provided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Our editor just called reviewers and writers for Rolling Stone, Spin, Billboard idiots, and he "as a freelancer, since I knew I'd do things better" and having a degree in music journalism makes him an expert. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BestDJofAllTime&oldid=prev&diff=1015529175 Still not comprehending what RS is or anything else we tried to explain to the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I've given him a final warning. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, missing the point. We're ignoring reliable information "out of hatred". <sarcasm>Yep, we hate successful, freelance reviewers who add their own opinion and claim to speak for musicians here on Wikipedia.</sarcasm> Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
With some of the things he's saying, I would think that it's an April Fools joke, if not for the fact that he appears to be expending about 5 times the effort of anyone else involved with his wall-of-text responses. Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Not that I was in the running, but this a good reason for why you're and admin and I'm not. I would have blocked him about a dozen edits ago. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I was right on the edge of blocking last night. I probably could have, but he seemed like the type that would drag things out with lots of unblock requests. Luckily, his ANI meltdown secured him a pretty solid indef block. Let me know if you see him block evading. I'll block any DUCKs on sight. Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Turns out, the editor was a sock. If he comes quacking, as he promised, I will mention it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I was reading through Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_62#Multiple_infobox_chronologies today because I wanted to understand exactly what it meant (as I realized I’ve sometimes been citing it in the wrong situations), and I’d like to get clarity on one thing. At the end of the thread, Isento pointed out that pipe linking to a discography page in an Infobox chronology would leave the reader stranded without the next destination. I agree with this completely. As well, I was doing some thinking, and came to the conclusion that having black/red links in a chronology would also leave the reader stranded, and would require them to manually navigate to a relevant discography page and find the link they were looking for.

I am proposing that we make album chronologies a chain of blue links that don’t link to a discography page (i.e. a chain of standalone articles). I would like to get a consensus on this, and see what other people think. In particular, I am curious to hear Lil-unique1's opinion on this, because they were the one that suggested piping to a discography page in the first place. Anyone who wants to add their opinion to this thread is encouraged to do so, as the more viewpoints, the better. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that links to the next album are nice, but not necessary. If the next album doesn't have an article, I favor a nice non-linking black text. Users who want to follow up with the next album can go to the artist page and follow up that way. I dislike excessive hand-holding. I especially object to a chain of stand alone articles for the purpose of linking along the chain of released albums. If an album article does not exist, someone can create a redirect page if they want, but it should redirect to the artist or the discography page. Creating a page just for the purpose of place-holding an album for the purpose of making an infobox chronology chain seems against how Wikipedia should be used. That is a feeling, as I do not have any project pages direction to support my argument. Mburrell (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I disagree - I think linking to the discography where an article isn't available provides the next best thing. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:EASTER suggests that if the reader was expecting an article about the album itself, and they land on a different article, and has to search, may be surprising. Linking to an article that may not have details about the album is not the best option. The reader can already link to the band (or artist) article, and that should have a link to the discography, so maybe no link is best. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Mburrell, Lil-unique1, and Walter Görlitz: Considering all of your opinions, I would like to follow up. Lil-unique, your point was debunked by Walter, as they pointed to EASTER, a policy that contradicts your opinion, so I would like to know where you stand on that, just to check in and see if your opinion has changed. Mburrell and Walter: you two both mentioned uses of either redirects to artist/discography pages if articles don't exist, or no links at all (plain black text), with Mburrell stating that they dislike excessive hand-holding. I have found a compromise of all three of your opinions that I can get behind, and I would like to hear your thoughts, as well as any uninvolved users' thoughts. If an album doesn't have a standalone article and there is a plausible redirect that either points to an artist page or a discography, we link to that. If no plausible redirect exists, we can either create one that points to an artist page/discography, or we leave it as a black link. This combines Lil-unique's idea of linking to a discography page, but Walter's EASTER concern is also met, and Walter/Mburell's suggestions of redirects/black links are the main part of this idea. If you could let me know your opinions on this idea, that would be great. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I still stand by what I said in the earlier discussion. The chronology parameter/template functions as a navigation bar, for which there are guidelines like WP:EXISTING. In the case of album articles, the only examples that come to mind are EPs that make so little impact that not enough sourcing exists to establish the topic notability, which I believe is how I arrived at this topic in the earlier discussion. Albums, unless by really obscure artists, should have enough out there to make an article with. So this doesn't strike me as an important issue more than an occasional fall thru the crack of the rules. isento (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Only actual album articles should be linked and not redirects to artist or discography pages. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
In lite of WP:EASTER, which I had never heard of before, no link is probably better. Although personally, if the infobox links are navigational I would argue that piping to the discography aids navigation as it takes you to the chronology of singles and albums. But EASTER says what is says so support that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Review scores for these books

I've recently acquired Rickey Vincent's book Funk: The Music, the People, and the Rhythm of the One (1996) and Dave Thompson's own Funk instalment of Third Ear: The Essential Listening Companion (2001), both of which are sourced in many contexts on Wikipedia and beyond. In addition to analysis of albums in biographies of the artists, both books also rate the albums - Vincent's on a 5 scale with little descriptions for each, Thompson's on a 10 scale with a full paragraph for each a la some of the shorter Trouser Press website entries (this being the general format of the Third Ear series). Would these ratings be appropriate for album ratings boxes and perhaps more to the point, if so, what would be the correct way to list these books - both books are essentially called Funk, but the full names would perhaps clog things up (which I assume is why shortened names like Encyclopaedia of Popular Music and Rolling Stone Albums Guide are preferred over the slightly longer full names). Or is it best to leave analysis from the books to the prose only?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I like both, I've used both. My preference is prose only, which is how I've added their criticism. I can't make a strong argument for excluding them from the ratings box; with respect to isento, Thompson is probably better known than Tom Hull... A lot of older album articles, unless they're BIG ACKNOWLEDGED CLASSICS, still lack sufficient prose (not that one can't use both the rating and the prose), so that would help there...although there have been many days when I've only felt like adding pretty little stars. To your second point, I think it's best to use the actual, factual title--I always add the "The" for Larkin or Rolling Stone if it's not there...we're not saving a lot of space by excluding it. They are factually, for example, The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, The Rolling Stone Album Guide, but Spin Alternative Record Guide, MusicHound Rock: The Essential Album Guide, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thompson is certainly a widely published author and biographer (I'm familiar with his Bowie biography Moonage Daydream), I can't speak for Vincent. I tend to agree with Caro7200 here: in general I prefer to use the ratings from contemporary reviews in the ratings box, rather than filling it with legacy ratings which are influenced by the benefit of hindsight and indeed established "groupthink" about a particular album. That said, I guess we're talking here mostly about albums from the 1970s, and very few publications used a rating system at the time – in the UK, Sounds and Record Mirror used five-star ratings from the mid-70s onwards, but in both the UK and US, almost every other music publication or newspaper only adopted ratings in the mid-80s. So it could be useful to use the ratings from these guides. Caro7200 has brought this up before and again above, and they are right, many R&B/soul/funk album articles are badly lacking in detail simply because specialist magazines from the time like Blues & Soul, Ebony and Black Music aren't available online, so any prose that can be added about these albums would be welcome. I can't speak for US music magazines, but I think it's very likely the UK publications would have reviewed many of these records during the 1970s... it's a case of me getting back to the British Library at some point to dig out back issues of NME, Melody Maker, etc.
Incidentally TangoTizerWolfstone, I've seen some of the articles you've created in recent months for Britfunk artists (Hi-Tension, Linx, Central Line, etc.) – as a Brit, and old enough to remember these albums when they first came out, it's great to see you've done such a good job on them. I'll try and find and add more contemporary reviews in due course, if you like. Richard3120 (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. I agree that it could be helpful to include the ratings given the general lack of scope for 70s funk albums. The articles I've worked on in this field mostly rely on AllMusic, different editions/spin-offs to Colin Larkin's EOPM and maybe the other odd thing when it comes to rating boxes, whilst in the prose its mostly reviews without scores. I've been lucky with the various Smash Hits and Record Mirror scans online, and Rock's Back Pages offering up stuff I can't imagine I'd see anywhere else, but yes the shortage of available commentary, particularly contemporary, for so many older funk albums is a nuisance and has stopped me from creating articles for more Britfunk acts like Freeez and Light of the World (thanks @Richard3120: by the way, glad you like the articles I have created - if you do have any more contemporary reviews on those that'd be great; particularly Hi-Tension was a bit of a problem on that front and I'd love to rework that article a bit if there's more stuff around). My inspiration (beyond personal interest) to buy the funk books was to flesh out the articles in any way (RV's book I'd already used a bit for Brass Construction but in time I'd love to do Brick, Slave, Crown Heights Affair and maybe others).--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Pebbles (series): notability of individual albums

Hi. Is anyone familiar with the Pebbles series of compilation albums, and its companion Highs in the Mid-Sixties series? I noticed that every single individual album from these series has its own Wikipedia article - roughly 70 of them. Over 50 of these are completely unsourced, and all these articles consist of is generally a tracklist and some original research trivia. While I have not examined every single album but picked a few at random instead, I haven't been able to confirm that any album individually passes WP:NALBUM; the best it gets seems to be Pebbles, Volume 3, for example, which has a dedicated review at AllMusic, which by itself is not enough to establish notability. At the same time, I realise that if there is significant coverage for individual albums, it's probably hard to find, especially if it's not online. So basically I'm wondering if anyone here has some insight in this - any input is appreciated. Lennart97 (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Shocking Blue who created those articles (many years ago). --Muhandes (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd say the vast majority are not individually notable. Even the overall container article is largely original research and self-referenced to the liner notes of the albums, but the series is definitely notable as a whole. Richard3120 (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Most are probably not notable, but the early Bomp ones, for example, are reviewed in the Spin Alternative Record Guide. A lot of coverage was tied to Greg Shaw's death. I've seen random articles in CMJ, Billboard, and stuff like the Tampa Tribune. Like Have a Nice Day, there are random reviews throughout the years. There are mentions in grunge histories, as, again, the early ones were influential. Psych and garage histories. I think they were enough of a novelty, coming after Nuggets, that there would be late '70s and early '80s music periodical coverage. It would involve a lot of digging ... which I ain't doing.  ;) Caro7200 (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Here I am. In a nutshell, the Pebbles albums were the first series of compilation albums of garage rock and psychedelic rock after the release of the original Nuggets: Original Artyfacts from the First Psychedelic Era, 1965–1968. In fact, the original 1978 release of the Pebbles, Volume 1 LP was subtitled: "Artyfacts from the First Punk Era". The Highs in the Mid-Sixties albums were a somewhat later series that concentrated on specific regional scenes. All of them were released under the auspices of Bomp! Records, though the name was licensed to others in a few cases. I hear you about the articles being "completely unsourced", but the Pebbles and Highs albums were released in the pre-Internet era and consist of songs by groups and artists that were almost completely unknown at the time and are mostly unknown even to this day. However, a sizable number of the bands now have Wikipedia articles – all of the bands do with respect to the Nuggets album, and a clear majority of those on Pebbles, Volume 1, with the percentage generally declining over time. So there is really no information to cite other than the liner notes which are pretty good as garage rock compilation albums go, to say the least. Greg Shaw was unparalleled as a music historian in that time period, so if he didn't know who these bands were, then nobody did.
Someone started deleting the individual Pebbles album articles some years back, but I believe that they were rescued by a kindred soul, probably TheGracefulSlick. I don't know all of the various Wikipedia rules; I put these articles in when there were barely a million English articles, so I am sure they have changed. I DO know that Wikipedia has become much more impenetrable; I would guess that two-thirds of changes that I have posted in the past two or three years are reverted right away, so Wikipedia isn't much fun for me anymore. And I certainly don't feel like fighting over whether something is "notable" or not; I have done enough of that over the years.
However, how "the series is definitely notable as a whole", as stated above, but the individual albums are NOT is difficult for me to understand. Why the hell is the series notable except because of the individual albums? Are similar value judgments made about bands, with early albums being notable, but later albums that everyone ignores not notable? Shocking Blue (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Because the series has been reviewed as a whole, but not every individual album. I suspect there are other sources in print talking about the series, too. Same as the Now! That's What I Call Music series... that series is notable as a whole, it has been discussed in many reliable sources, but the individual albums are not particularly notable. Richard3120 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, what Richard says. The key part is that notability is not inherited, in this case neither from notable bands appearing on the album, or the notable series that the album is part of. An album must individually pass WP:NMUSIC to be notable. Lennart97 (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Uh, yes, it's probably unnecessary to remind Shocking Blue--who was here in 2006--of this. To carry on from Shocking Blue's comments, it's alarming that "I can't find anything in 12 Google pages" is always a legitimate rationale, but "This late '70s and early '80s coverage must still mostly be in undigitized print" is not... Or we could, you know, consult actual books. Caro7200 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Uh, sorry, but ShockingBlue themself literally stated that they find it difficult to understand that the series is notable as a whole, but the individual albums are not and then explicitly asked why this is, so I'm not sure why it's "unnecessary" to answer that question. As for your other comment - anyone who has access to offline coverage is very much encouraged to add it to the articles, obviously. But "there might be sources out there that might someday be found" should not be a reason to keep an unsourced article around for years. Anyway, if you or anyone else wants to save these articles by adding this coverage, that would be by far the best outcome, so please do. If not, I will start nominating some of these album articles for deletion, or rather for redirecting. Which of course preserves the page history, so if significant coverage does surface later on, it will be easy enough to restore them. Lennart97 (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, although WP:INHERITED, as everyone likes to mention, is an essay. It is also something that's most useful when debating articles about people who may not be notable, not articles about art ... let alone art where parts add up to a whole. And there's always the tinge of "YOU better do this before I start doing x, y, z, that is unfortunate; I again echo Shocking Blue by stating that housekeeping has become more important than conveying information (which is not to say that articles don't need reliable references; more than 90% of my editing is adding reliable references). If you're gung ho on this, I ask that you start after Volume 12--the first 12 are at least rated and reviewed in the Spin Alternative Record Guide, which was published in 1995. And Volume 3 is not the only volume separately reviewed by AllMusic. Caro7200 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
That's alright, no need to touch those first 12 then. By the way, while INHERITED links to an essay, WP:NMUSIC in fact states specifically that An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. So it's definitely also a guideline in this case. I also don't think that caring about notability makes me 'gung ho' about anything, but that's of course a matter of opinion. Lennart97 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Cool, I'll look Tuesday, when I'm back at the library. Caro7200 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
If my massive redirect idea catches on, I can join a team effort or even do it myself. It would take a while though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@Doomsdayer520: Thanks for the input, here and at the AfD. I certainly agree that boldly redirecting these albums would be a lot more efficient than putting them all up at AfD. Redirecting was my original plan, but then the discussion above made me think doing so might not be altogether uncontroversial. I guess it depends on whether Shocking Blue and Caro7200 (and everyone else, of course) find this approach acceptable. If yes, I would certainly appreciate your help! Lennart97 (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer a redirect as well... and it's a shame that TheGracefulSlick got themselves banned, because they could have been very helpful here. I do have sympathy with Shocking Blue and Caro7200's point of view – I think Caro is correct in saying there will be coverage of the series as a whole in bits and pieces over the years, and maybe of early individual volumes in print from the late 70s/early 80s. Not sure where you would find it in US publications... possibly Rolling Stone, but Creem might be a better bet. From my point of view as someone from the other side of the pond, it would not be beyond the realms of possibility that the earlier Pebbles albums could also have been reviewed in NME or Melody Maker in the early 80s. These albums were obviously an influence on the garage punk and psychobilly scenes of the time, and there was plenty of coverage of this kind of music in the UK music magazines. The Cramps were very popular on the UK alternative music scene, as were the first couple of B-52's albums, and later came acts obviously inspired by them such as the Meteors and Guana Batz, and the Rev Horton Heat in the USA. So it's entirely possible that the UK magazines would have reviewed the early Pebbles albums as the inspiration for this music that was popular on the underground scene at the time. Richard3120 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Apparently, you modern Wikipedians are the ones behind the times: In addition to https://www.allmusic.com/album/pebbles-vol-3-the-acid-gallery-mw0000196708, there are dozens of Allmusic reviews of individual Pebbles albums; here is a sample: https://www.allmusic.com/album/pebbles-vol-1-original-60s-punk-psych-classics-mw0000196415 , https://www.allmusic.com/album/pebbles-vol-2-mw0000652384 , https://www.allmusic.com/album/pebbles-vol-10-mw0000232550 https://www.allmusic.com/album/pebbles-vol-12-the-world-mw0000253993 , https://www.allmusic.com/album/pebbles-vol-11-northern-california-mw0000747457, https://www.allmusic.com/album/planetary-pebbles-vol-3-surfbeat-behind-the-iron-curtain-mw0000603873 , https://www.allmusic.com/album/the-essential-pebbles-collection-vol-1-the-best-of-american-garage-mw0000051829 , etc. It looks like just about all of them at least have a listing, if not an actual review; here is what comes up on an Allmusic search of "Pebbles, Volume": https://www.allmusic.com/search/all/pebbles%2C%20volume . I am sure that other reviews of these Pebbles and Highs in the Mid-Sixties albums are going to come along; they remain very popular among collectors. Plenty of unquestionably notable rock bands have albums with only an entry, not an actual Allmusic review. So, is this enough to satisfy you? Can you please keep your meathooks off my work a little while longer?
After I got disillusioned with Wikipedia, I created a series of nearly 100 Facebook posts on what I call "Under Appreciated Rock Bands and Artists", i.e., those who did not yet have an article in Wikipedia. Most are pretty obscure, but some are well known enough: The Rip Chords, Wendy Waldman and even The Iguanas – Iggy Pop's original band, and the one from which his stage name "Iggy" is derived. All three have Wikipedia pages now, but they didn't at the time I did my posts. I created a database for these posts in Google Sites – https://sites.google.com/site/underappreciatedrockmusicians/home – that I am now in the process of transferring to a permanent home. I can always stick these album reviews in my database, but I would prefer that they remain on Wikipedia. Shocking Blue (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Now that I have you all assembled, maybe you can answer a question that I posed with one of my recent, immediately reverted changes. I was trying to make a few simple changes to an article on The Singing Brakeman, and I noticed that a couple of the footnotes on Jimmie Rodgers were directed to Wayback Machine entries, when the original link to, say, http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/39/jimmie-rodgers-the-father-of-country-music was still active. Surely you are not going to start using Wayback as a primary source; I can promise you that the State of Mississippi is going to be around a lot longer than Wayback Machine. Just curious. Shocking Blue (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
The state of Mississippi may not go under soon, but none of us can be sure some hip wonk in Jackson won't decide to "update" all of the state's web presences, making countless URLs invalid. The Wayback Machine copies are fallbacks for the day when the page stops being where we once saw it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
AllMusic is a database, so a mere listing doesn't mean anything, much like a Discogs listing. An AllMusic staff review however, while not establishing notability by itself, certainly does count towards it and should be taken into account. (And again, an unquestionably notable rock band's discography does not per se consist solely of unquestionably notable releases. If an album is notable but doesn't have an AllMusic review, certainly it will have been reviewed elsewhere.) Lennart97 (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Haven't forgotten about this, I'm checking out some books to take home. As Richard said, without Creem, NME, Melody Maker, etc., this may be a lost cause for the vast majority of the semi-later and later volumes. Caro7200 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Caro7200: it struck me that perhaps much better sources may be Goldmine in the US and Record Collector in the UK. These records would be more up their street. As ever though, it's a problem finding the time and opportunity to look through them... there are collections of both magazines in the British Library, but I'm not in the UK right now, and the Library isn't open anyway. But I'm not personally in any desperate rush to delete these albums. Richard3120 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Good point. I found a few things in books, which I'll add this afternoon. Unfortunately, a lot of book info was along the lines of Lou Barlow recommends Volume X, or Simon Reynolds loves Volume Y, or Mudhoney says that they're all super... Caro7200 (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I'm in a desperate rush, either, so if anyone needs some time to try and improve these articles, that's fine with me. While doing so, perhaps it would be a good idea that if you come to the conclusion that sufficient coverage really cannot be found for a particular album even offline, you redirect it yourself? Lennart97 (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Lennart97: I appreciate it, but without access to those early '80s music periodicals, it seems like a lost cause for now. I think it would be a lot of scrounging for reliable sources to merely substantiate basic facts; I think that the critical reaction plays into the notability a lot. I know many editors feel that too many short and stub album articles overly rely on reviews, but ideally there are both the development/composition/production and critical reaction sides. Some of the AllMusic reviews are better than others, but I don't really want to get into an "AllMusic wrote that Volume 7 is a little better than Volume 6" sorta thing. And my library has gone through some recent pandemic-related subscription and database losses, so ... perhaps redirecting is the best option. Shocking Blue is, of course, free to weigh in again, but I really only "cared" about the first 12... I added what I could for now to Volume 1, and will continue to look for that entry. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

An update, just in time before this discussion would have been archived: after some delay, I've now indeed started, and will continue in the coming days, to redirect some of these articles; starting with the most clearly non-notable ones, i.e. unsourced + zero coverage found online, AllMusic or otherwise (and not touching the first 12 in any case). If I find myself needing any help or advice, I'll post here. Lennart97 (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

BrooklynVegan

We never got to a consensus here regarding the website I mentioned above. However, after a long discussion with a user regarding it being or not reliable on a Good Topic. The user presented the following arguments, I would like for those to be taken into consideration so we could add said source, if we reach a consensus. These are mostly from interviews, calling them for best blog and other recognitions from reliable sources. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

VideoStatic reliability

I noticed that VideoStatic was used in a few music-related articles as a source for music video credits. However, I am hesitant about its reliability, especially since each post is written in the style of a blog, which can be uploaded by any registered user. The website's creator Steven Gottlieb is also credited as an author for the majority of posts, which also questions its validity since there is no 'about page' documenting the credentials of each author. VideoStatic also interviews music video directors, which are used in articles, although this may be acceptable per WP:PRIMARY. Regarding the contents of the website, can it be consistently used in articles when discussing music video credits, or only as a primary source for interviews? — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I have used it before, they seem accurate and on top o new music videos and always got the credits correct. They also have some articles on interest such as those interviews. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed - its an industry orientated resource and I've yet to see a situation where the credits don't match those published on YouTube. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Still Crew

Would this source [1] be considered reliable? ShootForTheStars (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You might have trouble getting that accepted – it's hosted on Medium, which is generally considered unacceptable as a source. Although it does appear to have some sort of editorial team, rather than accepting contributions from anyone. Richard3120 (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Does not appear to be a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Medium has been deemed as unreliable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for comments at Fearless (Taylor's Version)

More opinions needed in a discussion about whether to introduce the album Fearless (Taylor's Version) as a re-recorded album in the lead sentence. Popcornfud (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of Rolling Stone Brasil

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Rolling Stone Brasil. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Rolling Stone Brazil the same as Rolling Stone?. — Newslinger talk 01:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Tour sections?

I've been seeing exhaustive tour setlists pop up on some album pages as of late, such as the one here. This seems excessive to me, and another user brought to my attention that it may be an example of fancruft, but I'd like to get some more opinions on it. Someone obviously put a lot of work into that example I provided, but it's also very esoteric and poorly sourced. The main problem I have is with the very long setlist table, as well as the section near the bottom that lists percentages of songs played from albums. This all seems like absolute overkill to me and most likely OR as well. The prose paragraph seems okay, although a lot of that appears to be unsourced, too. Should sections like this just be removed?—The Keymaster (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's not just "of late"; there are rather a lot of these articles with setlists, e.g. Good Girl Gone Bad Tour. I hate these things in general, because they are invariably poorly sourced, if at all. (And we can't be sure that Bob or Cher or Tom or Taylor or whoever didn't throw in a different song in Philadelphia and Boston, or change the order for the UK shows, or something.) The Devo tour to which you linked doesn't seem "exhaustive" to me (not compared to Rihanna's GGGB Tour, anyway), although the section is entirely unsourced, and I don't see any "very long setlist table". Do you mean the tour dates?. In any case, that stuff in the prose bit about "62% old material" is obvious WP:OR and should be purged with prejudice. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, I'm sorry. I meant the tour dates table and the setlist section at the end. I don't know why I got confused. I feel those are both pretty excessive, especially without sources, but also because they seem more suited to a dedicated fandom Wiki than Wikipedia. Should everything below the prose section in "Tour" be nuked?—The Keymaster (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

How to categorise albums whose release was delayed

If an artist goes into the studio to record an album under contract, and that album is not released at that time for whatever reason, but is released some years later, should it be classified as a studio album or compilation album? Does the reason for the delay of its release have any bearing? How should it be considered within the canon of the artists work? I raise this question here as we have a difference of opinion regarding Motörhead's On Parole being discussed here and we're struggling to get a consensus or definitive answer. 213.122.219.75 (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

albumoftheyear.org

I saw albumoftheyear.org mentioned in the discussion above, and found that it's still cited in quite a lot of album articles (even prominent ones like GA American Idiot, at least until I removed it just now). In most cases it can be removed/replaced without any loss of information, but there seem to be two relatively widespread uses of it which I'm less sure about.

  1. For aggregate critic scores, especially in cases where there is a decent number of critic reviews but no available MetaCritic entry.
  2. For accolades, e.g. "the album was included in Rolling Stone's list of best albums of 20XX", where the original source is not available online. In this case, more so than in the one above, information would be lost by removing it, and leaving it in might encourage someone with access to original source to add it - but on the other hand it's still obviously an unreliable source.

Should these be removed with prejudice, or could there be a case for keeping them in some cases? Lennart97 (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

My big problem with using it as an aggregator is that unlike Metacritic or Any Decent Music?, it doesn't have a minimum number of reviews, so sometimes you get an "aggregate" based on one review, like this one, and obviously the aggregate is the same as the one review score. Richard3120 (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, and I certainly agree that there's no added value if the aggregate score is based on 1, 2 or 3 reviews. That's why I specified both a decent number of reviews, and lack of a MC (or ADM) entry. This scenario seems much rarer than I first thought, though; even when there are multiple reviews out there, AOTY often only has a few of them, for some reason. I guess the AOTY parameter in the album ratings template is deprecated for good reason.
The second issue (placements on best-of lists sourced to AOTY) is definitely more widespread, though. I've so far managed to replace some of these with the original sources, but some of these lists just aren't available online, at least not to me. Do you have any thoughts on it? Lennart97 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the first issue, I think "specifying a minimum number of reviews" might come under OR. If there are five reviews or more, it probably already has a Metacritic entry anyway, so as you say there might be very few cases where AOTY is the only option and not worth adding as an aggregator.
On the second issue, I can see the argument for using it where the original source isn't available, to make people aware that such a source does exist. But it has been listed under WP:NOTRSMUSIC, and I guess any use of it does rather go against that very clear consensus established at WP:RSN and legitimise the site somewhat. Richard3120 (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I've brought the number of articles citing AOTY down from 80-something to a mere 11 (almost all of them of type 2, with zero of type 1), which I haven't managed to replace and will leave for someone else. I guess Rate Your Music (1000+ times cited), last.fm (27,000+) and Discogs (40,000+) are more pressing issues, anyway... :) Lennart97 (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The source was found to be unreliable, overwhelmingly so at WP:RS/N; it's listed at WP:NOTRSMUSIC. The site's user-generated – any user can impose their personal biases through their choice of reviewer ratings (both those they add or omit). And there's no sign of the site having any sort of editorial oversight, nor of an editorial team (if it exists) having any relevant professional experience. I appreciate the questions here were put in good faith, but I don't understand why we're even talking about AOTY. JG66 (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm already done talking about it. Lennart97 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

album numbers

Curious to learn how editors feel about specifying the album number in articles (ex: [Title] is Willie Nelson's 47th album). This information if often unsourced, or sourced to guides or (fan) discographies, where the burden is on the reader to count through titles to confirm. It's also so prone to error, and reliable sources conflict quite frequently, even when the album number is relatively low, like sixth or seventh, for example. If the info is not reliably sourced or unsourced, I usually just remove it, and insert something along the lines of "is a studio album by"--especially when the albums get into the teens, twenties, and higher. Thoughts? (And check out the Tangerine Dream album articles ...) Caro7200 (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you have a really good point, especially when the discography may contain something like a soundtrack for a film, or maybe a mixtape, and then you get arguments as to whether these are included in studio album chronologies. Or you get someone like Phil Elverum, who has released albums under the names of the Microphones, Mt. Eerie and several others, but nearly all of them are essentially solo projects. Richard3120 (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree too – and that's coming from someone who only works on articles about well-known music from the 1960s and '70s (where, you'd think, issues to do with chronologies and discographies would be far simpler, because the industry was in its relative infancy). I think there often is OR involved in applying ordinals in article leads. Same in fact when an artist has their own discography page and totals for, say, numbers of studio, compilation, live albums are given there – it's usually a Wikipedia-created tally. JG66 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
JG66, speaking of 1960s albums, you've just reminded me of another potential problem, and it's that many British groups during that decade had completely different album titles and album chronologies in the US and Canada... the Beatles and the Rolling Stones are the most obvious examples, but there are others as well. So saying that Please Please Me was the Beatles' debut album, or even the Beatles' debut studio album, as it's currently described in the article, would not necessarily appear to be true to a North American reader. Richard3120 (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Richard3120: Absolutely, on that point about alternative albums for US and Canada, because LPs there were a fair bit shorter and US record companies added on the non-album singles (usually creating three LPs a year vs two in the UK/rest of the world). I don't think it's a problem saying that Please Please Me was the Beatles' debut studio album, any more than Let It Be was the twelfth, though – do you? They, the Stones, the Who et al were British bands, it's just that one (very major) market altered the releases for their record-buyers.
A while back when there was a discussion here about combining infobox chronologies – all studio/compilation/live albums and EPs in one, and with no separate chronology for US – I realised it couldn't possibly work for these British acts from the '60s. With the Stones, you've got a completely different run of releases (eg, at Between the Buttons); a compilation might not only be released at a different time of year in one market (Big Hits (High Tide and Green Grass)) but it's got different tracks in the other major market, partly because of new hit singles achieved in the ensuing months, but also because different songs were hits in the two markets anyway. You've also got a situation where a live EP from one year in one market shares a title (but little else) with a live LP from a different year in the other main market. Then, add to that the business shenanigans and acrimony that pursued the Stones' (unauthorised) releases after they left Decca Records in 1970: Decca releasing hits and outtakes compilations in the UK; London Records doing the same, but not exactly the same, in the US; and Allen Klein's ABKCO Records also releasing compilations. So ... well, how useful would it be to try to cram all that into the one chronology? It's similar with the Beatles during their career – things just appeared out of nowhere (Hear the Beatles Tell All, The Beatles' Story, 4 by the Beatles, The Beatles vs the Four Seasons) vs the UK chronology; and there are entries in Category:The Beatles with Tony Sheridan albums, which ... well, I just don't know what the hell we do with 'em, really.
Sorry – there was a point to this when I started typing! JG66 (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
See... I've never considered Yellow Submarine to be a full Beatles studio album, so for me Let It Be is the eleventh and final Beatles album... perhaps I'd better say no more on this thread... Richard3120 (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
If it's strictly studio albums, I disagree. Majority of the time, it's pretty uncontentious, and often easily sourced if you were actually pressed to do so. (I rarely source it because it's rarely challenged, but I'm certain I could if it was.) That said, if it's trying to an artists collective work. Like if someone counted it out and figured out that some EP was a musicians 23rd release when you count up all the albums, live albums, EPs, and greatest hits, no, that's generally not particularly helpful to note and can turn contentious. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Unless there's no ambiguity – say, three albums and everyone agrees on the chronology – don't include the (supposed) ordinal number. The quibbles and quarrels aren't worth it and will lead to quibbles and quarrels among the readers. EddieHugh (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Are these sorts of things common though? I've been both doing and observing it being done for over a decade now, and there's rarely any sort of argument present unless a band released a some sort of non-standard album that combines old and newly released material. I'll admit I'm not typically working on these legacy acts like Jimmy Buffet where they've released 20-30 albums, but I work on a lot of veteran rock acts that are in the 5-10 album range, and it's rarely contentious. This strikes me as one of those "solution in search of a problem" type scenarios. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I think so. Perhaps I should clarify. I've mostly been adding references to under-referenced stubs and short articles for the past year plus. There have been more than a few times where, for artists with lengthy discographies, (as an example; next time I see it, I'll link to it) AllMusic has claimed that album X is the artist's 27th, Billboard has claimed 28th, and The Washington Post writes that it's the 25th. Meanwhile, an editor from long ago had decided to number all of the artist's albums without providing a source. My argument is not that we should eliminate all the numbers, but rather that it should be acceptable, if we notice conflicting information in RS, just to change the first sentence to "Title is an album by [artist], released in 1987", or whatever. I mean, no one is ever going to tap you on the shoulder at a party and say "Quick, what was Chuck Berry's 26th album?"...even if some of us would enjoy being at such a shindig... Caro7200 (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I mean, I'm all for removing any contentious unsourced ones - that's just good practice - I just don't want there's to be a massive "remove them all until they're sourced" type thing, because as I've said, many aren't sourced just because of WP:BLUE more or less. It'd be a waste of time and effort. I just fear that, because sometimes that's the direction some of these sorts of suggestions go. Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Sergecross73. Album ordinals shouldn't really be controversial unless there's a dispute or uncertainty in the article in which case, yeah there should be a source. Same goes for metadata like track durations, there really shouldn't be an extra burden on editors on the basis of WP:AGF. Erick (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Everywhere at the End of Time importance rating changed

I changed the article's importance assessment from Low to High. Given that it has over 10 million views on YouTube, I think this change is warranted. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert the change. InvalidOStalk 12:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You don't really need to announce it or anything, though you may want to have more of an argument than "YouTube Views" ready if you expect people to disagree with you. I'm not sure that alone is enough of a reason. Just generally speaking here, I'm not familiar with this album personally. Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Alright. Maybe Mid might be a better importance rating for it? I think Low importance is definitely too low for it, given that it's been a bit of an internet phenomenon. The article has an entire section on that. InvalidOStalk 13:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd still say that this was a low-importance album, to be honest – looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment#Importance assessment, the mid-importance level states that "Many readers will be familiar with these albums, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of them"... I doubt that statement is true for this album, I would think the majority of readers have never heard of this album. I don't think 10 million YouTube views is a particularly large number these days. I'm not going to argue over the rating, though. I kind of rate albums roughly along the lines of top or high-importance for albums in the Rolling Stone and NME lists of the 500 greatest albums of all-time and those listed in 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die, mid-importance for albums by well-known artists that have charted highly in several countries, and low-importance for the rest, but that's just my personal opinion. Richard3120 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
As the main contributor for that article, I don't think it is of high importance either. Mid importance would fit well, since it was a phenomenon for some time on TikTok, and this was noticed by the NYT, NPR, Junkee, and others. While I do think the album is getting more popular, I'd say it still isn't popular enough for High-importance (although if you ask someone about it, there's a decent chance that they'll be like "oh, isn't that the 6 hour long dementia album?", especially if they're a TikTok user and even more especially if they play FNF).
~ Wetrorave (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
In fairness, I was aware of some of the Caretaker's earlier work, but I moved out of the UK over a decade ago, so this album (collection? box set?) passed me by. But it clearly has attained some degree of notability that I wasn't aware of, so I think we all seem to be happy with a mid-importance rating. Richard3120 (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Yeah. Even though I'm not particularly familiar or used to the importance classification, I still think it is reasonably popular (albeit not a "music to listen to in the radio"-kinda popular).
For instance, A Crow Looked at Me, a 2017 album, is labeled as Mid-importance, with its most popular YT upload having 275K views, whereas Everywhere at the End of Time, a series of albums released from 2016-2019, is (or was) labeled as Low-importance, with its most popular YT upload having 11M views. While I know full well that YT isn't the best argument for this kind of statement, it certainly indicates that EATEOT is more than Low-importance.
And it shouldn't be high importance; as much as I love the series and the way it depicts dementia, it isn't something that "most readers will have some knowledge of", but rather something which "many readers will be familiar with, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of". It would only be of high importance in a WikiProject if that WikiProject was about me :)
~ Wetrorave (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, it is ranked #42 on the popular pages list. Mid importance would indeed be the perfect classification in this case.
~ Wetrorave (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to note that there are pages on the popular pages list with low importance, including the current top page. InvalidOStalk 13:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, one of the things I and a couple of other editors are working on is to try and get every album article to be rated for class and importance, and then go through them and try and see which ones maybe should be higher or lower. But I think it's going to take at least five years... Richard3120 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
This is not necessarily related to the discussion anymore or me trying to overargue something which has already been consensus'd on, but it is intriguing nonetheless: EATEOT it is getting more views than Sgt. Pepper's.
  • Here is the view count for Sgt Pepper's;
  • here is the view count for EATEOT.
This might change in the future but as I'm writing this (24 April 2021), the Beatles' album got 88K views in the past 30 days, whereas the Caretaker's series got 109K.
~ Wetrorave (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't really surprise me, though – I'd fully expect someone to come to Wikipedia to look up information about an album that's only come out five years ago and that they may have heard about only recently, much more so than an album that's been out over half a century and that everyone and their dog already knows everything about. I'd also argue that the people interested in Sgt. Pepper's are less likely to come to Wikipedia or the internet for their information. Richard3120 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps the examples I've given are bad but still. I've added about 2 times more sources since your message's publication, which are indicative of mid-importance. I just find it fascinating how such an obscure, lengthy, experimental project has found its way onto mainstream as a challenge on TikTok. It also appeared in a trollface video and in a mod of this game. (this violates WP:TALK#TOPIC so I'll stop) Wetrorave (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Future Nostalgia has an RFC

Talk:Future Nostalgia has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Consequence of Sound is now Consequence

Consequence of Sound is now known as just Consequence. Does that mean mentions of Consequence of Sound should ideally be changed to Consequence retroactively (eg in reception sections), or should we leave it to reflect the fact that it was the publication's name at the time?

Unusually, I have zero opinion on this subject and would like other editors to tell me what to do. Popcornfud (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: I know about this days ago and already change the title in several articles. I even change it at WP:ALBUMSOURCE. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
TheAmazingPeanuts, thanks for updating WP:ALBUMSOURCE, that "previously known as" thing will likely save a lot of confusion. Popcornfud (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
<edit conflict>Someone else pointed out this name change quite recently and it got me wondering about the same thing. I don't believe we should rewrite history, so to speak, to match the site's 2021 rebranding. I've felt the same about The Huffington Post becoming HuffPost; also wonder about Pitchfork Media's change to Pitchfork and when exactly that occurred. Archived URLs will support a publication's name at the time of writing, as will secondary sources.
My approach to this comes from working on articles about music and music scenes in the 1960s. Back then, for instance, there were no official sales charts, several European countries had different names from now, as did well-known record companies, music publications and recording studios. So, in a 1960s/'70s context, it's historically inaccurate to write about the Billboard 200 (for much of the '60s it wasn't even a top 200 list), the UK's Official Charts Company (which didn't exist until perhaps the mid '90s), Notting Hill's Sarm West Studios (which was very well-known as Island Studio, and then Basing Street Studios), or album reviews in Sound & Vision magazine (when it was known as Stereo Review). Dylan recorded for Columbia, not Sony Music. Take it a step further, and it would be like discussing an event from World War II and saying that the Luftwaffe bombed Heathrow Terminal 5 when in fact the German bombers targeted Harmondsworth Aerodrome ... JG66 (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
This makes sense to me. Popcornfud (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I note we have always used NME rather than New Musical Express... and of course the publications were originally known as THE Melody Maker and THE Billboard when they started out, so there are some instances where we already use the most recent name of the publication. But I agree with a lot of what JG66 says – deluxe edition reissues of Bridge over Troubled Water released in the 2000s will have a Sony Music logo on them, but the vast majority of people across the world will have an older copy that says either Columbia or CBS on it, and we don't see the need to update the record company to its current name. Likewise with the recording studios: even on reissues, the names of the recording studios are never updated in the liner notes, and trying to do so would just lead to confusion and editors changing it back to the original name. Using JG66's example above, part of Songs to Remember was recorded at "Island Studios" – when I was working on the article I just piped the name to Sarm West in the infobox and kept the original name in the text, it seems so much easier to avoid problems. Providing Consequence of Sound now redirects to Consequence (publication) (which it does), I don't see any desperate need to rename everything immediately. Richard3120 (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed there's definitely no urgency either way. Popcornfud (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed as well. Quite the contrary, sometimes the re-naming can be confusing. I dont particularly feel it's accurate to say that Smells Like Teen Spirit topped the Alternative Airplay chart in 1991 when they didn't name the chart that until 2020. But it's done pretty widely, so I wasn't sure if it was worth the effort to push back on. (Or maybe I'm mistaken and it doesn't really matter.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, resorting to present-day names can be plain confusing (ridiculously so if you travel further down the line, with the sort of examples I was citing). As a reader, I want the information in the appropriate context, not something that conforms with our perspective in 2021. I don't expect or want a modernising of the events behind a 1950s record by Presley or Little Richard. And, just as with top sources like Jon Savage or Ian MacDonald discussing the 1960s or '70s, I don't think you're likely to find Paul Guralnick talking about a Billboard 200 or anything else when writing about the '50s music scene.
Richard3120: Good point about MM, NME, etc. If I wander at all with regard to that New Musical Express/NME naming issue in 1960s music articles, it's because within the content of the magazine, the writers at that time do refer to it in the abbreviated form (even if the masthead gives the full title). I think articles from, say, the 1940s or '50s should be referring to The Melody Maker and The Billboard. JG66 (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I had a discussion with JG66 on his talk page about this a while ago. To me, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason in regards to previous names in publications. For instance, in many of David Bowie's articles that I have been expanding, I have been using RCA instead of RCA Victor (while Harry Nilsson's records of the era use RCA Victor); Billboard 200 instead of Billboard Top LPs and Tape (or whatever it was), among other things; there's also THE NME. In my opinion, I would like to get a clear understanding or some sort of standard set in stone about things like this, because it really feels like it's up to the editor's preference at the moment. – zmbro (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
So which approach has rhyme and reason for you? That's the question, surely, particularly if, as you say, there is inconsistency across the articles you work on or look at. Also, as you said before, you weren't aware of differences in chart names or the lack of official chart compilers, so it's safe to assume others aren't either. To my mind, it's about being historically accurate – eg, an artist's record was released on a certain label or it wasn't. And a single or album can't place on a sales chart that didn't exist at the time, just as a journalist can't have reviewed the song or album for a publication with a title that hadn't yet been adopted. JG66 (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

What about a site itself, which decides to streamline things as just, for example, the Billboard 200? Caro7200 (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be best to be historically accurate and have the correct names for the correct time periods. I've been doing it the way I've been doing it because I assumed it didn't matter. Even as Caro7200 has just pointed out, the Billboard 200 has essentially made it appear as though it's been the Billboard 200 this entire time, when we know it hasn't. – zmbro (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it makes the most sense to cite the source by the name it went by at the point in time (i.e when it was written/published), so any references now would display "Consequence" alone, and ones dated prior to the name change would be "Consequence of Sound". Simple and non-headachy. And any targets using COS would simply redirect to Consequence if the page is renamed. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended track listings for bonus editions, reissues etc

MOS:ALBUM says: If there are significantly different track listings for different editions, these can be listed under sub-headings.

I've recently come to question the utility of this. For example, take the In Utero article, which lists first the track list of standard, original version of the album... then the track list for disc one of the 20th-anniversary reissue, then the track list disc two, then the track list for disc three, then track list for some DVD, then the track list for another DVD.

Is this stuff actually useful to understanding the album? Is it in the encyclopaedia's interests to document every permutation of track list and bonus material released with every edition? In almost all cases, it's all material secondary to the original release, and the bonus material is rarely the subject of the article itself (ie we don't hear about the recording or writing or interpretation, etc, of any of it). It strikes me as a borderline indiscriminate list of stuff that bogs down articles, perhaps better relegated to discogs.com. Summarising the notable contents of reissues in prose should suffice, surely. Popcornfud (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems important to me when the subject is something like an album. I don't usually get the vibe that it's particularly bogging down articles when it's relegated to its own section. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I get what Popcornfud is saying though... it's a real slog to go through the track listings for Songs from the Big Chair, for example. Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
It is...a lot. But to me, it's not particularly worth trying to define a subjective "too much" line and try to enforce it amongst all the passerby editors that add that sort of stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
it's not particularly worth trying to define a subjective "too much" line
Easy: only include the track listing of the original version of the album, unless material on other editions is the subject of extensive commentary in the article. That takes care of 99% of cases. Popcornfud (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
It's weird to me that someone who participates in notability/deletion/merge discussions would think a phrase like "extensive coverage" is a concrete, objective term that editors will generally understand. I'm willing to argue over things like notability. Not interested in adding "extra track list discussions" to that list. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh come on. How many Wikipedia policies or guidelines are 100% "concrete and objective", and require no editorial discretion or discussion? When editors debate notability, they are not feeding it into the infallible notability machine to get the answer, they're interpreting the policy and drawing a conclusion.
How do you feel about WP:FILMPLOT, which contains such "concrete and objective" advice as "Mid- and post-credit scenes should generally not be included in the plot summary ... [unless] they provide key relevant details for the film itself"? Is there a scientific measure for detecting "key relevant details"? Or: "plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words ... [unless] the film's structure is unconventional" - any tips for objectively detecting unconventional film structures?
There is room for interpretation. That's normal in Wikipedia guidelines. Popcornfud (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying it's not going to be as clean cut as you think, and I think it's a waste of time. Not worth it. A net negative. But you seem more than motivated to waste your time and effort on it, so I'll leave it to you. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
That's the spirit! Popcornfud (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
What makes it important to you? I mean, look at Hail to the Thief, about the Radiohead album, which dutifully contains all the extra tracks included in the reissue released in 2009 by EMI without Radiohead's consent. Seven years later EMI lost control of Radiohead's back catalog and the reissue was discontinued and removed from digital services. In the fullness of time I think this reissue will matter not much, and has already basically disappeared from the landscape of relevance - worth mentioning in the prose, sure... but is it adding a lot of value to document forever that for 7 years there was another edition of the album that featured, for example, a performance of "Sail to the Moon" performed on BBC Radio 1's Jo Whiley's Live Lounge on 28/05/03? It feels like the quality of information we typically exclude from Wikipedia, like listing every character's special moves in a video game article. Popcornfud (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
It defines and outlines the variants that exist. That's not particularly crufty to me. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
But what's important about those variants? That's the critical thing here. We could write lists of the contents of special edition boxes of video games - figurines, art books, bonus DVDs etc - and say "well, it defines and outlines the variants that exist". But we don't because we don't deem it important. Popcornfud (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
<edit conflict x3>Damn, Popcornfud, it's like you read my mind ... I gather there's a new multi-disc CD reissue of John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band just out. I've trimmed down details that were initially added at the article, but we're still left with disc track list after disc track list giving different permutations of outtakes, jams and demos as if it's all as notable and intrinsic to the main subject as the original 11-song, 40-minute album. It just so happens that the final (8th) disc of JL/POB 2021 has a sequencing that does not depart from that of the 1970 release, but it made me think about situations where track listings for these deluxe (ahem) reissues go on and on, and how we can then come to a Personnel section where the numerals that refer to tracks on the original release mean nothing, or demand that readers scroll back up the page to see which track a particular numeral refers to. More on this later perhaps ...
It resonates with longstanding concerns of mine that we've allowed album articles, especially, to become a home for hobbyists coming straight from Discogs, in the case of track listings, but equally there's a general creep with infobox chronologies, the lead's mention of the "...th" studio album by [artist], etc, reviewer ratings dictating content of critical reception sections (over more notable reviews where formal ratings aren't applied) ... I'm concerned about how these mostly non-prose elements have been allowed to satisfy the hobbyist in us all, but depart from a genuinely encyclopaedic scope. The situation with Album of the Year ratings appearing in album articles was a perfect example: trash site, user generated, but some editors are drawn to the statistical result as "significant", simply because it is a statistic. I remember years ago an editor not usually involved with WP:ALBUMS saying that the project indulged quirks and creativity that aren't permitted elsewhere on Wikipedia. This is an example, I think, along with the other areas I've mentioned. JG66 (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a good point. There's a nerdish lust for reams of data - a desire to be comprehensive - that is on the one hand wonderful (and makes sites like Discogs and IMDb critical resources) but isn't always compatible, imo, with the goals of the encyclopaedia. (This is something I'm constantly fighting on articles about synth gear.) Popcornfud (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Multiple track listings for every reissue is overkill, non-encyclopedic, detail-for-details-sake. A recent example is a second track listing for a reissue that substituted two tracks, where it was already explained in a section about the re-release.[2] Some details, like long lists of production credits, cover songs, etc., are better for discogs, secondhandsongs, and fansites, which specialize in this sort of info. WP should focus on providing encyclopedic articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree - given that almost all reviews and criticism will be based on the first published version,notability of reissue variants is usually missing. It usually sounds like breathless marketing. The exceptions would be where track listings vary significantly for different countries, and for examples where a non-album hit is added while the album is current. My main use of wiki track lists these days is to find out the original content because Spotify's version of album runs for twice the expected duration.Martinlc (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
As redundant as it might be to say it (ie, I'm agreeing with those who agreed with me who agreed with the concerns raised here initially), I'm convinced we should address this issue.
I mentioned a John Lennon album with an extraordinary, eight-disc reissue; Lennon's Imagine album has a similarly bewildering (imho) level of track-listing coverage for its reissues. For instance: Does the 2018 Disc 1 "Ultimate Mixes" content merit a full listing when the original 10-song album is represented by mixes that might be a few seconds longer than the originals? Does the Disc 4 "Evolution Documentary" need to be detailed song by song? And does the 2019 Record Store Day release merit inclusion at all, when the prose could easily refer to the album having been represented in the 2019 LP release with alternative mixes, and leave it at that? I don't know who said it first – Popcornduf, me or Ojorojo – but that's Discogs territory. I know from working on articles on Lennon and that band he used to play in that, as thorough and obsessive as the coverage of every second of their music is, it's going to be five years at least before these Plastic Ono Band and Imagine out-takes and alt mixes receive any significant coverage (let alone genuine notability in their own right). But as it stands now, we're just allowing Wikipedia articles to be an extension of Discogs, etc, but also of record-company press releases circulating as news content at dozens of music publications.
Further to what I said above, I'd almost welcome an audit by non-involved editors into how we go about things at WP:ALBUMS and :SONGS, because I think we need to be mindful of departing from what Wikipedia's about, eg WP:NOTEVERYTHING: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. JG66 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Since there seems to be an appetite for this, I took a stab at writing a proposed change for the MoS.

Current wording: If there are significantly different track listings for different editions, these can be listed under sub-headings.

Proposed new wording: Only include the track list for the most notable edition of the album; this is usually the original release. Only include track listings for alternative editions when they are significantly different and the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article; in such cases, additional track listings can be listed under subheadings.

I've basically made that up, and it's kind of long right now, but it's a starting point. Thoughts? Popcornfud (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a good start. The guidance should try to limit these open-ended statements that seem to encourage bean counters. Similar clarification should be added to WP:SONGS#Single track listings. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
It definitely captures the spirit of what we've been saying. I wouldn't worry about the length of the statement, necessarily – it might even be an idea to be more specific.
I agree some clarification at WP:SONGS#Single track listings would be welcome also. At the Paint It Black song article, for instance, I've never understood why we bother with a Track listings section at all. I would think it's needed for, say, those multiple formats typical of the 1980s and early '90s (7- and 12-inch vinyl, cassette and CD), but not for something as simple as a different track on a two-song 45rpm record. JG66 (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Any suggestions for expanded/alternative wording, I'm all ears. Popcornfud (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm tempted to suggest stating explicitly that a track listing section should not be used as a dumping ground for full details about each and every expanded reissue via Discogs or a record company press release circulated by online music publications – because I think that would catch most editors' attention. (Which includes me; I'm not scolding the editors who add them, just complaining about the result on the page.) Maybe: Only include track listings for alternative editions when they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article, rather than merely included in listings at sites such as Discogs or in articles announcing the reissue. In such cases, additional track listings can be listed under subheadings.
If not, no worries. To my mind, anything's an improvement on allowing multiple track lists simply because they exist, and to such an extent that the section can end up covering a third or half the length of the page. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe add an alternative: Otherwise, a statement in the section where the alternative edition is discussed may be sufficient in lieu of additional lists of tracks, such as "The 20th anniversary CD reissue includes alternate takes of 'SongA' and 'SongB'". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@JG66:, I would be inclined not to add the part you suggested, because the tracklistings originate from the reissues/etc themselves, it doesn't really matter if they're also documented on Discogs or other sources.
I've attempted another version incorporating @Ojorojo:'s point:
Only include track listings for alternative editions when they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article. In such cases, additional track listings can be listed under subheadings. Otherwise, notable differences in track listings can be summarised in the prose in lieu of additional lists of tracks.
How do we feel about that? I'd like to get this done so I can go about cleaning up a lot of album articles I look after. Popcornfud (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Popcornfud: No problem. I just thought it might be more effective in terms of addressing the problem in practice, rather than just theoretically, to capture an editor's imagination (Ah okay ... Yep, I've just come straight from Discogs or an article recycling a press release). I'm sure it's fine as you've written the statement above. JG66 (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Popcornfud: That should do it. Nearly the same wording could be used for WP:SONGS#Single track listings. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I like it, too, except that, as an English speaker with grammatical peeves (my doctor can't help me), I'd prefer to move the "only": Include track listings for alternative editions only when ..., possibly with some italics for the only so it doesn't get overlooked in the middle there. Otherwise, good luck; I fear some resistance from those with add-it-to-Wikipedia-no-matter-what syndrome (there's nothing doctors can do). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks all. As we don't seem to be facing any opposition, I'll add it to the WP:ALBUMS MoS and the WP:SONGS MoS, with the tweak from John. Popcornfud (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Popcornfud: I have a question for you. Do the deluxe editions count as well, articles such as Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon and Good Kid, M.A.A.D City? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
TheAmazingPeanuts, I'd say so, but what do you think? What do other people in this discussion think? I don't want to just dictate all this. Popcornfud (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Popcornfud: I mostly agreed with you about the track listings, I don't think we should add extra editions in the articles as well, but I suggest we should keep only one version of the deluxe edition of the album, and remove the extra editions that are only available in iTunes, Target, UK, Japan and other countries. That just my opinion on the issue. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
If there are multiple deluxe editions, and the track order is different, only one needs to be listed. If there are various editions (deluxe or otherwise) but the track order is the only difference, explaining in prose makes the most sense. However, I do know that some editions add one additional track, and if that is the case, then simply listing the additional track, with a source, does not seem to be a problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure we can make allowances for listing a few bonus tracks off an otherwise similar edition if they're discussed in the article, right? isento (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable souce check: Mixdown

Do we reckon this a reliable source? https://mixdownmag.com.au/ Popcornfud (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

For audio mixing equipment, then maybe yes. But this is WP:ALBUMS, so that's probably not what you're asking. If you want to know whether Van Halen III is hard rock or synth rock, then no, I wouldn't rely on Mixdown. I'm always uncomfortable when I can't find out who the hell the people are. They have no "About us" or "Impressum" page, AFAICT. I've not heard of them (which means roughly nothing) and I don't recognise either of the authors' names (Will Brewster, Eli Duxson) from the few articles I clicked through to. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
JohnFromPinckney, thanks for that assessment. Unless anyone comes along with a different take I'll discard it as a source for now. Popcornfud (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Okay, page 6 of their online issue #315 includes a masthead, and they look more professional than I initially thought (it's not just two guys and a dog). I don't know how much help they'll be for albums, though; they seem to be focussed on guitars and other equipment. What do you want to use them for? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
JohnFromPinckney, definitely was planning to use them more for articles on audio equipment, so this might have been the wrong place to ask, but it sees way more traffic from experienced editors than Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments. Popcornfud (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Where to find old Alternative Press entries.

Hi, I'm trying to find old Alternative Press magazines online. I'm looking for an album review of Mount Eerie by the Microphones, from Feb 2003, on p.70. I have no idea where I could find this without owning the actual magazine myself, anyone know of a source where I can find this? Thanks. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mcguy15: it's not looking good. I can find an archived copy of the front page of AP's online website from April 2003 [3] and it doesn't seem like they put any reviews online at that point anyway... the "New Releases" section in the menu on the left simply displays a list of the newest releases and their dates of release, but no other information. I assumed from your user page that your local library might be Toronto, but they don't appear to have a collection of the magazine there. One place that does is New York Public Library [4] – as a Brit, I've gotten a library card and used their music magazine collections for Wikipedia research while I've been on holiday in NYC, so it is perfectly possible to do as a foreign visitor if you are prepared to go there for a week or two. Of course, the libraries aren't fully open right now anyway so you wouldn't be able to carry out this plan just yet, but it's something to keep in mind if you're prepared to wait. But for now, I don't think you have any other options, sorry. Richard3120 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Thank for taking the time to check! That sucks—I don't find any reason for myself to be in NYC anytime soon. Toronto is accessible, but my more local library in Waterloo, Ontario, doesn't have anything either, which is to be expected. I'm not in need of that article too badly at all, just wanted to verify the album score in the article. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 22:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mcguy15: yeah, it's a real problem, unfortunately – it means decent detailed Wikipedia articles on albums are generally either recent albums, where all the information is on the internet, or the acknowledged "classics" from big rock acts like the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, etc. because there are many biographies available about those bands. It's a major reason why I focus my efforts on UK post-punk/synthpop albums from the late 70s and early 80s, not just because they're favourites of mine, but also this period of music history is one of the least detailed on Wikipedia... and the same goes for US and Canadian music from this time. The British Library has an excellent collection of nearly every UK music publication you could want, and from experience I can tell you the New York Library has a similarly comprehensive collection of American publications, although in NYC you have to order many publications from off-site. But if you want to search magazines from more specialist areas like Alternative Press, Metal Hammer and Raw for metal music, or Blues & Soul and Echoes for R&B, soul and funk music from the 70s and 80s, you run into real problems trying to locate back issues of them anywhere. Richard3120 (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Is Allmusic adjusting ratings?

Hello. I came across 10 Years of Hits which states it was rated 4.5/5 stars by AllMusic. The current URL shows it is rated 4/5 stars. However, archived archived copies do show it was 4.5 stars before it was adjusted to 4 stars in 2015. I was wondering if anyone knows if AllMusic is adjusting ratings. Also, should we use the old rating or newer rating if they get adjusted in the future for other articles? Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I have seen them adjust ratings, too. I'm not sure which one we should use, or if we use both.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
AllMusic occasionally updates its reviews, replaces them with ones by different authors, or removes them altogether. Depending on what the reviews are being used for, identifying specifics should be noted. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
AllMusic's FAQ page on the subject states, "Editors may choose to revisit an artist's discography, especially if an artist releases a great new album, to re-factor the earlier releases to better fit within the band's history ... The text of the review is still valid, but the older rating gets adjusted." This is in line with the fact that the rating is a relative rating compared only with other albums by the same artist, and not with all other albums by other artists. In other words, if an album by Bob Dylan and an album by the Backstreet Boys both have a 4/5 rating, it doesn't mean they are as good as each other in AllMusic's opinion. This has always made me feel uneasy about using AllMusic's ratings: I think they give the casual reader a deceptive opinion of the album. Richard3120 (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
They say that's the case, but the vast majority of artists with reviews don't have at least one five-star review. So it isn't JUST comparing against the rest of that artist's discography. It's an ambiguous and obscure process.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Just found the same issue in reverse. La buona novella was 4.5/5 stars and now 5/5. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source check: Punknews.org

Hey all. Wanting to know if this website would be considered a reliable source. Thanks! – zmbro (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Zmbro: According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, it is. (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Tbhotch Must have forgot to check there, thanks! – zmbro (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

https://secondhandsongs.com/

Sure this has been brought up, but don't find the archives all that easy to navigate...is https://secondhandsongs.com/ reliable? It would appear not. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a group of music enthusiasts and user-submitted information to me. Richard3120 (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree, I've been seeing it pop up in articles semi-recently. Caro7200 (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Most-viewed stub article within this Wikiproject

Flesh of My Flesh, Blood of My Blood 187,182 6,239 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what point you're making... arguably this could be uprated to start-class, with several album ratings and chart positions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
They did this at WT:VG too. The editor is big into trying to get people to improve articles, so I imagine the point was "Hey, this article is popular but under-developed - we should fix it". Or something. I don't know for sure. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I've become recently interested in what I call 'PoP pages' - articles which have the undesired combination of 'Popular' and in a 'P'oor' state. Flocks of readers visit these pages as an authority on the topic, and a less-than-suitable, widely-viewed article can 'pop' the fragile balloon of reputation that Wikipedia relies upon. (Still following the metaphor? :P) For this reason, I thought it was interesting to check out the most viewed stubs/starts in wach major Wikiproject and share this interesting information.--Coin945 (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
For context, this one is probably seeing so many views due the recent death of DMX. I can't imagine it's usually pulling in big views anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Rolling Stones collaboration

Hey all. Would anyone be interested in collaborating on a Rolling Stones album? I'm currently interested in Exile on Main St., Goats Head Soup, It's Only Rock 'n' Roll, and Some Girls (which I've expanded a great deal recently). I'm looking to bring any one of these (specifically Some Girls) to GA and possibly FA. If anyone is interested just ping me here or let me know on my talk page. Thanks everyone! – zmbro (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:A (Ayumi Hamasaki EP)#Requested move 25 May 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:A (Ayumi Hamasaki EP)#Requested move 25 May 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Radiohead's The Bends

Hello everyone, I had a long discussion with Popcornfud about the Bends first release date. We found that it was first released in Japan on 8 March 1995 and not 13 March as it is known. See Talk:The Bends (album) for details; We would like you to resolve this issue. Thanks. Tamer Gunner (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello to you. I reviewed the discussion at Talk:The Bends (album)#Release date and thought I would comment on the use of primary vs. secondary sources. Per Wikipedia's guideline Wikipedia:No original research, under the section Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, it states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Under Primary sources, it states as policy 1) primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. 2) Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. 3) A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. 4) Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. There is a 5 & 6, but more blah-blah-blah.
From this, you can use primary sources for specific facts such as release date unless you have evidence that your source is unreliable. Apple Music and Amazon have been used to establish release dates in other articles. A record label would be preferable. This is my interpretation, and is subject to further debate if desired. Mburrell (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that Amazon and Apple Music aren't reliable for releases before the internet era. As they weren't in existence at the time, they depend on release dates given by the record company or the official websites of the artists for their information, and these are often wrong. I've just checked a couple of albums on Apple Music from artists with release dates known to be wrong on their websites, and sure enough, Apple has replicated the wrong release date for the albums. Richard3120 (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I can second this. I've found instances of Apple Music not even having the right year for release dates, from albums as recent as the early 2000s. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The release date is listed on the Obi strip that comes with the Japanese edition. Yeepsi (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I can appreciate the desire to get things "right"; at the same time, I'm having a problem with the idea that one should have to look so hard to achieve that. For a band as notable as Radiohead, we should be following what authoritative, reliable sources say. If details go by the wayside in that approach, well, that's reflective of the quality of the coverage the artist has received – which can be majorly frustrating, I know, but this is Wikipedia. Fan sites have the luxury of getting things right, and all power to them for that; hopefully, biographers and music historians pick up on that thoroughness, but until they do ... (Hello to Yeepsi, btw.) JG66 (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
There's another, related issue here I'd like some opinions on. It seems another Radiohead album, Amnesiac, was also released first in Japan, so Tamer Gunner has changed its release date on that article and the Radiohead article.
The WP:ALBUMS MOS says "Note that the infobox should only include the first release date and label" so I guess this is fine, but it's slightly counter-intuitive to me to lead with the release in a region with no particular attachment to the band or work, only preceded it by a few days, and isn't canonically seen as the release date. (A few publications, plus Radiohead's social media accounts, published stuff marking the 20th anniversary of Amnesiac on June 4 just two weeks ago - ie, not the Japanese release date of May 30.)
I'm open-minded here and don't feel strongly, but would feel better if there was a consensus about it. Popcornfud (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
First, thank you all for your interest in this issue and for giving possible solutions, with my all respect to Wikipedia's policies. Secondly, I still same as you guys, don't prefer the idea of using Amazon's source as the only and last option, so I kept looking again for an answer to my question and I actually found a Japanese magazine had mentioned that The Bends was released on 8 March ("3/8 ON SALE!!"), so I think this issue has ended. As for what Popcornfud said, yes, I changed the release date (4 June) of Amnesiac and put the first date (30 May), according to another Japanese magazine, also take a look on this Obi strip (thanks Yeepsi for reminding me of this point). It's normal to note that some parts are missing, we can say that this Japanese release date of Amnesiac is almost rare to be known because the English and American sites/magazines did not mention this matter, so it will not be known enough, same thing with The Bends. On the other side there is OK Computer, 90 per cent of fans knows its release date (21 May), although it was in Japan, why that? because the English and American sites/magazines mentioned that several times in many articles, in addition to the role of Wikipedia itself.
For the anniversary topic, I don't understand Radiohead's inconsistency in their celebrating of their releases' anniversaries! they celebrated the 20th anniversary of OK Computer in May 2017 (Japanese release date), but for Kid A, they celebrated its 20th anniversary on 2 October, although it was first released in Japan on 27 September 2000, according to Billboard, and guess what you will find on their Apple Music? So, I don't know, if they celebrated the OK Computer 20th anniversary on 16 June (UK release date), I would conclude that they care about their releases' anniversaries in their homeland in the first place. Tamer Gunner (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The Wixsite version of Heaven's Metal Magazine

Heaven's Metal Magazine is a reliable source. However, I've had an editor express concerns over the older Wixsite version of the publication's website, which now is functionally an archive version of the publication. Wixsite version, current version. Personally, my approach is that the heavensmetalmagazine.com version is preferable if the article can be found there, but the previous iteration is reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's probably reliable, as the official website of the magazine – I know it's hosted on a "create your own website", but we've seen other reliable sources like musicOMH and Drowned in Sound move to Wordpress sites, simply to save on hosting costs, and this looks like the same situation. Richard3120 (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay. That was my thought too, but wanted to get some other opinions since a concern was voiced.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Steven Universe: The Movie § Split soundtrack into its own article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Steven Universe: The Movie § Split soundtrack into its own article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Am I missing the point again?

I have an editor who is insisting that an album that consists of singles released to thei fan club over the previous decade with some bonus tracks thrown in constitutes a compilation album. I know that many albums released in the 50s and 60s were repackaged singles, but they're not considered compilations. The problem is, the album has one source and it does not call the work a compilation album. How should it be treated? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

RSs often do not specifically say studio album or compilation, etc., so it's arrived at by consensus. The dictionary definition of compilation includes "a thing, especially a book, record, or broadcast program, that is put together by assembling previously separate items" (emphasis added). So, if the album is made of up of previously released singles or other recordings not originally intended to be released together, I'd say compilation. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Make your own mind up: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Punk_Rawk_Christmas&curid=25138809&diff=1029059044&oldid=1028977549 Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd consider it a compilation generally, because it was just a collection of stuff previously released. While sorta OSE violating, that's how it's been handled with the similar-in-concept Cover Version article, without any issue or dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a compilation album, because of the article's text "contains 10 tracks originally ...released each year" and because of the source calling it an anthology (synonym for compilation) and saying, "The singles from 1998 to 2008 were collected and released in 2009...". That the singles went only to fan clubs doesn't matter; the source says "released", so I consider them previously released prior to 2009 (or 2018, of course). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

How to classify Boingo Alive?

I noticed today that Boingo Alive is filed in the compilation section of Oingo Boingo's discography page, but I think this is debatable, as it's an album of brand new live-in-the-studio recordings of (mostly) previously released songs. To my mind, it's more of a live album, if anything. I looked through the History section of the discography page and noticed there's been some edit warring going on about this in the past, and someone also left a note on the discography's Talk page four years ago that echoes my sentiments. Can we get a consensus on this? I'd like to get others' thoughts before I decide to change the designation. The Keymaster (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Good question. My opinion is that it's not a live album; it is more a compilation, or perhaps a rerecording of songs. I only know what I read in the article, but it seems to be yet another album undertaken due to copyright/masters issues (which is why the recent Taylor Swift album provoked a similar question of how to define it in the first sentence). I think the defining attribute of a live album is that it's a performance for an actual audience. This doesn't even qualify as a live-in-the-studio thing, where they're playing for an engineer, and it's going to be broadcast to an audience in the moment or later, and then released in some capacity. To put it another way, the only intended audience is the paying OB consumer. It seems like it was solely recorded for financial/ownership reasons--and I don't mean that in a "those capitalist swine!" kinda way. According to Wikipedia: "Recordings that are done in one take without overdubbing or multi-tracking are termed 'live', even when done in a studio. However, the common understanding of a 'live album' is one that was recorded at a concert before an audience, even when the recoding is overdubbed or multi-tracked." Clear as mud? It's also a problem that the article needs many more references--perhaps that would help to clear up stuff. Caro7200 (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
That's another problem: there have been a handful of explanations for that release over the years. One of them is indeed reclaiming ownership of masters after leaving I.R.S. Records, but only about half of the songs on there were originally released under that label, so I don't know if I believe that. (Not to mention there are also two brand new songs included.) Another explanation I've heard is merely so the band could celebrate ten years of being together. (It's even subtitled Celebration of a Decade.) I've never heard a clear explanation from any of the band members on the reasons for making the album. I do know that their 1991 "best of" compilation, Best O' Boingo, only used tracks from the MCA years, so songs from the I.R.S. years had to be represented via the re-recorded Boingo Alive versions. To me, it's not a compilation, because that implies a gathering of previously released material (or an archival issue of previously unreleased old material). Heck, I could even buy the argument that Boingo Alive is a full-fledged studio album, since it's not live in the conventional sense and all the performances are brand new and intended solely for that set. As you say, it's "clear as mud"! The Keymaster (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
"Not quite a greatest-hits album and not quite a live album" = Chaos. A live studio album that compiles songs, maybe? (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
This discussion seems similar to one I had on KT Tunstall's talk page about KT Tunstall's Acoustic Extravaganza. In that discussion, {Talk:KT Tunstall#Is KT Tunstall's Acoustic Extravaganza a studio album?, User:Binksternet and I sort of decided it was a new category, a 'collection', not a compilation or a studio album. Sometimes you can't fit the square pegs in round holes, and you have to carve out a new shape. Boingo Alive seems to also fit in the collection grouping, neither live nor studio nor compilation. Mburrell (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I can see that argument, but for the purposes of Wikipedia, how should Boingo Alive be filed on Oingo Boingo's discography page? Maybe in an "Other releases" section? The Keymaster (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
A friend has alerted me to a [Los Angeles Times article] from 1988 that sheds a lot of light on this. The Keymaster (talk)

Any further thoughts on this? The album seems to now be classified in three different ways, depending on where you look on Wikipedia, and it's a bit of a mess. In my opinion, it should be consistently classified as one thing, even if it requires a new designation, like "Other." The Keymaster (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's another monkey wrench: [The hype sticker] and [promo ads] both clearly state that the album was recorded live. The Keymaster (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

  • 3 XXXX (album) 242,810 7,832 Stub Unknown
  • 13 Scaled and Icy 119,884 3,867 Start Low
  • 22 Van Weezer 110,807 3,574 Start Low
  • 24 Khaled Khaled 106,899 3,448 Start Low
  • 30 Blue Film (album) 97,322 3,139 Start Low
  • 32 Daddy's Home (St. Vincent album) 95,847 3,091 Start Low
  • 35 Armageddon (1998 film) 94,269 3,040 Start Mid
  • 37 Bruce Almighty 93,311 3,010 Start Low
  • 44 Boogie Nights 89,210 2,877 Start Low
  • 45 Kids (film) 87,514 2,823 Start Unknown

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

At one point, Proyecto 40, for example, was being "watched" 100,000 times per day. It was not real people though. In the case of XXXX [5] it seems to be related to the title "XXXX" rather than people caring about the album. Scaled and Icy, Van Weezer, Khaled Khaled, and Daddy's Home (St. Vincent album) were released recently, so they naturally have larger pageviews. Armageddon, Bruce, Boogie, and Kids are popular films, not albums. If anything, Blue Film (album) is the "most-viewed, worst-quality article", and its quality is not that bad, it's a C-class article missing a complete personnel section. (CC) Tbhotch™ 01:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the editor has done this "top ten" on several WikiProjects across Wikipedia, but unfortunately it's not as useful as he/she think it is. Here we either have film articles in which the soundtrack plays a minor role, or just-released albums which naturally will have both lots of recent attention and a lack of information about them yet. It would be far more helpful if some filters were applied, like removing the articles which are mostly about films, and removing albums which are less than, say, 12 months old, so we could really get a better idea of the long-neglected album articles. Richard3120 (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I didn't create this generated list. Im just sharing it. I think it would be more useful to have a generated list of most viewed stubs/starts with daily views within a standard deviation to weed out spikes and. TBH I think it's a good idea to include newer albums because people will come to Wikipedia in droves so it's valuable to double-check what sort of page they'll be landing on. (Those film articles are currently tagged as part of this Wikiproject so that would have to be manually changed). If you know how to program that, be my guest! The good news is it's starting a conversation about what I like to call 'PoP' articles (Popular and Poor), which can 'pop' the fragile reputation of Wikipedia as people flock to them as their Oracle and base their assessment of us on what they find. Definitely a valuable endeavour to discuss raising such articles to at least a B-class, IMHO. :)--Coin945 (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that the reason the newer articles are lower-rated at the moment is because there isn't enough reliable information yet to be able to improve them, not because people can't be bothered to improve them. I suspect if you made the list again in a month's time, the Twenty One Pilots, Weezer and possible St. Vincent albums would all be C-class, and you'd have a new set of albums released in June/July that are searched for, but for which information doesn't exist yet. So these albums will be improved with or without this list being generated. That's what I mean about not being that useful, because recently released albums will always have this problem, and it would be far more useful for older albums. Richard3120 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
He's got a history of doing the same at WP:VG too. He frequently pointed out all the edutainment video games that needed improvement, even though there's little to no interest from the regulars in that sort of stuff. It's a nice thought, but a bit misguided. He'll stop eventually once he sees there's no interest. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Is Wordpress reliable?

I really don't think Wordpress is an appropriate site for reliable sourcing because it's a blog site, and blogs are self-published sources written by free users. I tried deleting a reference to this site that's owned by Wordpress from the North of South (band) article, but someone keeps reverting my edits saying that the reference is proper but my edits aren't. So my question is, can Wordpress really be used as a reliable source now, or should the user stop reverting my attempts to delete that source? Please help me solve that issue. OK thanks....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliable for what? I suppose it depends on what the content is and who is generating the content. If a well-known reviewer decides to start a blog to post additional reviews, it could be reliable. If a blogger includes a photo of liner notes, and that is used to support album details, maybe. If I'm seeing the content correctly in the linked article, it looks like a metal zine is using WordPress as a content management system, and if they otherwise pass RS, It could be reliable. But bloggers are not usually reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
WordPress is like YouTube - it's not so much a "source" as it is "a medium for publishing sources". So if a reliable source like Loudwire publishes content on YouTube, it's usable. But if "SuperRockGodRyan" with no credentials uploads a review from his parent's basement...that's not usable. The same logic would apply to WordPress. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#RfC about Metacritic in Critical Reception sections

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#RfC about Metacritic in Critical Reception sections regarding whether Metacritic belongs at the top of Critical Reception section or in the body. Additional views are welcome. -DaxMoon (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

AllMusic

Hello, I'm confused with AllMusic being allowed as a reliable source but people telling me that there's a few things that aren't reliable sources with AllMusic such as the studio used to record the album, about 2 weeks ago people were telling me that AllMusic is better of a source than Discogs (which personally I think Discogs needs to be considered a more reliable source because there's a lot of very valid information on it) so if there are sources about albums including the studio location can you please tell me because I feel like that I'm being falsely advertised about AllMusic Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not that complicated. Allmusic prose is usable - the paragraphs of text in the reviews and biographies are reliable. It's the sidebar stuff - their "infoboxes" - that you need to stay away from. That content frond somewhere outside of Allmusic and often has errors or contradictory content. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Discogs, on the other hand, is going to be a pretty hard sell, because it violates WP:USERG - which is a major point of our reliable source guidelines. Sources are supposed to come from professional publications that have professional writers and journalists, and Discogs accepts content from anyone. Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Sergecross73 that anything in a review (the prose) is reliable. The genre clouds and other details are not likely reliable. The details on discogs.com is user generated. It is safe to be used to show an album exists. If a photo of the liner notes, label or CD is useful. There are other details that may be useful there, but should be avoided for major details. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

"Various Artists"

Is this a proper noun requiring capitalization? I didn't think so, but I've got an editor who keeps implementing that change. No big deal, just one of those things that got me thinking... Sergecross73 msg me 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't come across it too often on Wikipedia, but I think it should be capitalised. If we're talking about when the term's used for a collaboration among many artists or especially for a compilation album, it is an official credit for the work. Different, of course, if we're just saying in prose that "various artists" from the rock or hip-hop scene got together and decided to do something for a charitable cause. It's the formal credit aspect that makes the difference, I'd say. JG66 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The context is List of Billboard 200 number-one albums of 2021 - the May 1st entry. You also touch on my follow up point - I'm not entirely sure this album is actually officially credited as "various artists" either. Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah well, after posting above and reading the next comment below, I did follow contribs to see where the area of conflict was. I'm confused about the 1 May 2021 entry too – that does seem to be an example of Wikipedia editorialisation. If the album article (Slime Language 2) is to be trusted, the artist credit should be "YSL Records, Young Thug, and Gunna"; if there's a need to alter that and highlight Young Thug at the List of... page (and I'm not sure why there would be), then I don't see that it should be or needs to be "Various Artists" at all, capitalised or otherwise. "Young Thug, other artists" appears to be more accurate. To repeat, I don't think it's up to Wikipedia to mess with an official credit; if an album or single is credited to Various Artists – or some variation of "and Friends" or "and Others" – that's how we should reproduce the term.
This is getting uncomfortably close to that issue I've mentioned on and off, of music project editors becoming a bit too tricky and creative, imo. Anyone logging in at Discogs has that sort of licence (eg, the bizarre, rigidly alphabetical order of musicians, specific contributions, and studio locations at Discogs, which ends up misrepresenting those areas – unless, say, Peter Ames was the main contributor, and his principal contribution was Acoustic guitar, and the album was mostly recorded at Abbey Road Studios), but no one here does ... JG66 (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
As I've mentioned, this is already prevalent on a number of 'Billboard #1 album' pages here (1978 - Saturday Night Fever) and functions as a proper noun to designate a collective. In my opinion, both 'various artists' and soundtracks should be lowercase when you're using it in a sentence. In this case, it occupies the artist column. Also, if you read the Billboard charts, this is the strategy that they have followed throughout the years. Second, it's aesthetically an eye sore on the page... but more thoughts are welcome... WolfSpear04 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
If that's correct, then I'm fine with it. But you just keep saying things like "other articles do it", which isn't a great rationale on its own - see WP:OSE - it could just be that all the Wikipedia articles are doing it wrong. That's why I wanted to have a bigger discussion on it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
My (strong) preference is lowercase "various artists", except: (1) where it's the first bit (alone) in a table cell (unlike the linked example), and then "Various artists"; or (2) where that's how the work is actually billed, then "Various Artists". MOS:CAPS actually begins with the sentence, Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. The inertia of "but we've always used caps" is difficult to work against, but old bad style is still bad style, and OSE doesn't persude me much. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 03:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I have always used Various artists in the List of xxxx albums tables, under the rationale that it is not a proper name, but a mention that various artists are involved in the project. Full capitalization of leading letters is title case, and in this case it is not a title, just a listing that multiple artists are involved in the music on the album. I capitalize the first word because although it is not a sentence, it is the lead word in the cell. It is like listing genres, you capitalize the first word, and leave the others uncapitalized unless they are proper nouns (e.g. Southern, Christian, Latin). Also, aesthetically an eyesore is in the eye of the beholder. I know what I feel is an eyesore, but I don't use that as an argument. Mburrell (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Certification Table Entry

How to add custom reference for certification? Eurohunter (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

If you're asking about Template:Cite certification, and haven't found the answer there, why not ask at Template talk:Cite certification? And if you really need to add some "special" referencing (for some unknown reason I cannot guess), you are not required to use the template. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 03:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@JohnFromPinckney: No. I wanted to replace automatic reference with standard reference because automtic is wrong. Eurohunter (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Can you actually tell us which one is "wrong"? Like which article, and which country are you trying to add the certification to? Richard3120 (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Quique genre

There is a discussion on the talk page about including genres in the infobox of the article on Quique. Any contributions would be helpful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Billboard.com charts

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before but Billboard.com changed how they display chart information; locking most in-depth information (that was previously free) behind a membership paywall. This has entirely destroyed Template:Album chart on billboard links. I've noticed the archive.org usually has a cached copy of an artists old page that has all the pertinent information in it though.RF23 (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This has happened before, but the free links came back... we'll see what happens. I've said previously that I expect in time that all chart providers will stop making their chart information free,and Wikipedia will have to work out a way to get round that. Richard3120 (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I pointed it out a ways back. So far, things haven't changed much since the info can generally be verified through other means. (You can still look it up indirectly by band/musician and see how they performed by chart, and for some reason, their paywall loads up like a half of a second after the page loads, so a carefully placed "stop loading command" on a browser makes it so the paywall doesn't pop up.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
For Billboard chart info, what's the difference between using a source that's behind a paywall or, say, one of Joel Whitburn's books? Just because the average Joe can't verify the info doesn't mean it's not verifiable. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying there is one. I was just saying that there were ways around the paywall. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The category "LGBT-related albums" was deleted per a CfD on 11 Oct 2014, but this has just resulted in many albums and EPs being placed in the parent Category:LGBT-related music. Either the albums sub-cat should be recreated or the album articles should be removed from the parent category for the same reasons the albums category was deleted. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:A Thousand Pictures

This was created by a likely COI editor who has since been topic-banned from the artist. I don't know if it's of interest to anyone here, to me the sources don't come anywhere near being enough, but I kind of feel like even a COI editor's work is worth someone who has knowledge of the subject taking a look at. —valereee (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the Allmusic source is good, (though that pull quote is way too long) but I'm not sure about those other two sources. I wouldn't say it's enough as is. I don't know enough about jazz to fix it up, but I think there are some regulars around who know the area better. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Extra AFD input - Danko Jones EP

If anyone could give any more input at the AFD for Danko Jones (EP), I'd appreciate it, no matter what your stance. It didn't sit right with me when it was initially closed as "no consensus" - I could be wrong, but this doesn't particularly strike me as contentious or controversial nomination - it's just suffering from low participation. AFD link here. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Album "label"

For some time now, a relatively new editor has been going around changing the label among other things in the infobox/lead/release history section of various BTS articles. I thought I/the editor(s) who wrote/brought the relevant articles to GA listed everything correctly, but this person says we're wrong/have been making continuous mistakes, so I would like some clarification please because it's been bothering me a lot. I'll link this album's credits for reference (I don't use Discogs since I own most of the albums myself, but it's convenient for my question), and it's WP article. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Interested to see an answer here. The article for Universal Music Group says "The biggest music company in the world,[5] it is one of the "Big Three" record labels"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Anyone? The albums I've looked at don't have Universal Music Japan on them. They only say UMG, which is what I had put on some articles, but the editor I mentioned above has changed a lot of those mentions (if not all) to UMJ instead, so I'd really appreciate some insight. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm assuming that there are no clear third party reliable sources for the labels, so use the albums themselves as the sources (with Template:cite AV media notes). As per Template:Infobox album#label, "Only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified." Others may be mentioned in a "Releases" section if noteworthy. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: for the above-mentioned eg, I think I listed the labels as UMG/Def Jam/BH Ent per the album's back liner (I didn't use cite av media notes though so I'll have to rectify that) but they changed UMG to UMJ, in the Rel History section they changed it to Def Jam/Virgin only (with zero mention of BH Ent which is the artist's home label and all releases have that name on it), and you can see what they said in their edit summary. They've done this across multiple album+single articles. Even when I double check the physical albums I own and make corrections, they just come back and remove a label that should be there, or they'll change it to a diff one based on what they think it should be, and I'm at the point where I feel really stupid and anxious now, like I've been doing this wrong the entire time. Could you tell me what you would put as the labels in both the infobox and the Rel History section? I think that's the easiest way for me to know the exact info I should extract from any album in future. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
You may be dealing with disruptive editing, so check the advice at WP:DE. I don't know enough about BTS or Korean labels, etc., to sort out the original vs other releases. This is something more appropriate for their or their discographies talk pages, which seem to get a fair amount of attention. Good luck. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Metal reviews

Just noticed that an article for The Crimson Corridor was created. Some of the review sites seem a bit suspect, but then again, many sources for metal articles feel that way. Any comment on the sources there? Should we modify Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines to make this more clear? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitely agree that there's some sketchy sources present. "Angry Metal Guy", for one, just appears to be a bunch amateur bloggers with their sole "credential" being "liking metal a lot". I'm not really following what you want to do at the Musician's article guidelines though. Is that the right link? Or am I misunderstanding something? Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The Vinyl District

Hi all. Would this source be considered reliable? Thanks! – zmbro (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Cool site! Yes, at least I would say so. Their about page doesn't list any editorial staff, but the article you linked to and the one on Exile on Main St. are written by a named person (Michael H. Little), not some hip pseudonym like "vman" or something. That's the same guy on both (and several other) articles, but I also see Evan Toth and a couple of other names, besides "TVD HQ". I detect no user-generated content, IAC. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 04:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward No. I think I've actually removed a ref to it before, that was tied to simply a grade, no prose. It's primarily a commercial (advocacy?) site, even if it is directing people toward independent record stores. I agree that there's no indication of editorial oversight, or if any of the writers are more than just superfans. Completely subjective, but that Exile review doesn't add anything that dozens and dozens of "better" sources haven't already pointed out. Happy to change my opinion if another editor knows more about it. Caro7200 (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Categories on compilation albums

For Bills & Aches & Blues, I added nationality categories (e.g. Category:Compilation albums by Canadian artists) for all the artists contributing to the album, coming to nine of the thirteen categories of the page. Probably should've asked at the time, but the thought crosses my mind now as I'm working on another comp article: Is this proper form? Should those categories be removed/not added to other articles?

Secondly, for May the Circle Remain Unbroken: A Tribute to Roky Erickson, I added Category:Roky Erickson albums, seeing as all the songs on the album are ones he wrote being covered by other artists. Do artist categories only apply for albums recorded by said artist, or would this belong as well? QuietHere (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

For the first, I'd say that's overcategorization. To me that's no different than categorizing it under Category:Dry Cleaning (band) albums for the one song they contributed to the comp. For the second, Category:Roky Erickson tribute albums would be the way to go. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Definitely agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars on the second one – Category:Roky Erickson albums should only be for albums actually by Erickson, in my opinion. I think I agree with their view of the first question as well. Richard3120 (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_63&oldid=1045704379"