Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 72

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Track template

I have been going through the Blue Note albums and making track templates for the albums.

Extended content

Ex. I took: All compositions by Sonny Clark, except as indicated "Dial "S" for Sonny" – 7:26 "Bootin' It" – 5:17 "It Could Happen to You" (Johnny Burke, Jimmy Van Heusen) – 6:59 "Sonny's Mood" – 8:38 "Shoutin' on a Riff" – 6:45 "Love Walked In" (George Gershwin, Ira Gershwin) – 5:50 "Bootin' It" [Alternate Take] – 5:15 Bonus track on CD and turned it into: All tracks are written by Sonny Clark, except as noted Side 1 No. Title Writer(s) Length 1. "Dial "S" for Sonny"   7:26 2. "Bootin' It"   5:17 3. "It Could Happen to You" Johnny Burke Jimmy Van Heusen 6:59 Side 2 No. Title Writer(s) Length 1. "Sonny's Mood"   8:38 2. "Shoutin' on a Riff"   6:45 3. "Love Walked In" George Gershwin Ira Gershwin 5:50 CD bonus track No. Title Length 7. "Bootin' It" (Alternate Take) 5:15

A user has asked that I stop until I gain consensus. Does the community have a problem with track templates being used like this? TlonicChronic (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Track_listing_styles. Why are you changing the existing style? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:TRACKLISTING writes that the track listing template is only needed in "more complicated situations". The situation in your example is quite simple. A previous discussion bent towards avoiding the template wherever possible. Tkbrett (✉) 01:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to see why editors care either way. I wish we'd stop sinking time into this. Sergecross73 msg me 03:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Then why waste time changing it at all. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The comment was directed towards anyone wasting time on this. I won't comment further, to minimize the inevitable "Serge you're wasting time commenting too" comments I'm sure people are already drafting up. Sergecross73 msg me 04:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

To stop from having these conversations in the first place. Otherwise, an indefinite amount of changing "color" to "colour" or DMY dates to MDY dates could happen, which is not building an encyclopedia, but wasting time. If we decided that there were a single style to use, then it could be imposed globally. Since we haven't, this back-and-forth is just taking up resources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree especially with the track listing template. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 04:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess using parentheses for exception is okay rather than empty fields in track listing template. But another problem is someone told that converting to parentheses also renders the display needlessly messy, with all the already existing parentheses from the song titles and feature notes.

So I made the track listing just like this:

Extended content

No. Title Writer(s) Producer(s) Length 1. "Dreamland" Dave Bayley Bayley 3:23 2. "Tangerine" Bayley Paul Epworth Brittany Hazzard Bayley 3:20 3. "((Home Movie: 1994))" Bayley Orit Braha Bayley 0:07 4. "Hot Sugar" Bayley Ann Bridgeforth Dave Hamilton Rony Darrel Bayley 3:54 5. "((Home Movie: BTX))" Bayley Bayley 0:13 6. "Space Ghost Coast to Coast" Bayley Bayley 3:07 7. "Tokyo Drifting" (with Denzel Curry) Bayley Caiphus Semenya Denzel Curry Bayley 3:36 8. "Melon and the Coconut" Bayley Bayley 2:28 9. "Your Love (Déjà Vu)" Bayley Bayley Paul Epworth[a] 3:54 10. "Waterfalls Coming Out Your Mouth" Bayley Bayley 2:41 11. "It's All So Incredibly Loud" Bayley Bayley 4:19 12. "((Home Movie: Rockets))" Bayley Bayley 1:00 13. "Domestic Bliss" Bayley Bayley 3:18 14. "Heat Waves" Bayley Bayley 3:58 15. "((Home Movie: Shoes On))" Bayley Bayley 0:31 16. "Helium[+]" Bayley Bayley 5:28 Total length: 45:17 Dreamland (+ Bonus Levels) No. Title Writer(s) Producer(s) Length 1. "Heat Waves" (Diplo Remix) Bayley Bayley 2:21 2. "Heat Waves" (Shakur Ahmad Remix) Bayley Bayley 3:18 Dreamland (+ Bonus Levels 2.0) No. Title Writer(s) Producer(s) Length 17. "I Don't Wanna Talk (I Just Wanna Dance)" Bayley Bayley 3:15 Dreamland: Real Life Edition No. Title Writer(s) Producer(s) Length 17. "Heat Waves" (Stripped Back) Bayley Bayley 3:14 18. "Space Ghost Coast to Coast" (Stripped Back) Bayley Bayley 3:02 19. "Your Love (Déjà Vu)" (Stripped Back) Bayley Bayley 4:09 20. "I Don't Wanna Talk (I Just Wanna Dance)" (with Albert Hammond Jr.) Bayley Bayley 4:14 21. "Tangerine" (with Arlo Parks) Bayley Epworth Brittany Hazzard Bayley Epworth 3:27 22. "Space Ghost Coast to Coast" (with Bree Runway) Bayley Bree Runway Bayley 2:56 23. "Heat Waves" (Shakur Ahmad Remix) Bayley Bayley Epworth 3:18 24. "Tokyo Drifting" (with Denzel Curry) (Oliver Malcolm Remix) Bayley Caiphus Semenya Denzel Curry Bayley 2:52 25. "Heat Waves" (Diplo Remix) Bayley Bayley Epworth 2:22 Notes ^[a] signifies a co-producer. ^ + "Helium" contains the hidden track "(Home Movie: Are You Watching TV)" "Hot Sugar" contains a sample of "Deep Shadows", written by Ann Bridgeforth, Dave Hamilton and Rony Darrel and performed by Little Ann "Tokyo Drifting" contains elements from "Mahlalela (Lazy Bones)", written by Caiphus Semenya and performed by Letta Mbulu.

@Οἶδα, TlonicChronic, Blueberry72, Koavf, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Sergecross73, Zmbro, and Tkbrett: What do you guys think? 2402:1980:82B4:E135:0:0:0:1 (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. The track listing template is ugly and clunky and shouldn't be used. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree @TlonicChronic this is a waste of time. There's no requirement to use {{tracklist}}. Its an option to format complex situations. Where there's a simple format with the same writers or producers a list suffices. The template is ugly I agree- but I wouldn't bother using it in this situation. Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it applies here. Seriously there are other things to spend time on, especially if the change is vanity (not required) and someone has contested it, don't bother changing it. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 11:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This IP editor has been dragging this dispute ([1] [2]) all over the place and is now forcing it here. It is not precisely relevant to the topic you are discussing (i.e. reformatting existing numbered list tracklistings into using the template). Οἶδα (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Blueberry72 did the same way on Bad (album) ([3]). 2402:1980:828A:7547:0:0:0:1 (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)​​​​​​​​

Closing discussion per WP:UNBLOCK.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Any IP from Malaysia who is trying to push this tracklist idea is involved in block evasion by the range Special:Contributions/183.171.0.0/16. They can be reverted on sight per WP:EVADE. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC) That's good to know. Thanks! Οἶδα (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC) The IP range has unblocked because the range has been used by different person. 2402:1980:828A:7547:0:0:0:1 (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Sort of concur with everyone else that this is a timesink. This practice does not need to be standardized. However, in the case that all tracks are written by one person, i.e. Speak Now, the template should not be used with a writer column. Not using the template in that case would make more sense.--NØ 11:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

But there's only one song "If This Was a Movie" which was co-written by Swift and Martin Johnson. I wonder if Οἶδα or Zmbro agree or not. 113.210.105.178 (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC) (Corrected by 2001:D08:2950:47AC:17AB:F3CD:17B3:7648 (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC))

I suddenly thinking of leave blanking only for interlude as uncredited songwriter/producer as seen on The Velvet Rope#Track listing as an example. @Binksternet, @Koavf, @TlonicChronic, @Tkbrett, @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, @MaranoFan, @Sergecross73, @Zmbro, @Lil-unique1 and @Οἶδα: What do you guys think? 2001:D08:2951:4F92:17AE:1842:834:DE85 (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't massively care for this question or discussion. If you don't have the credits officially listed in album booklet, digital credits or META ID, then leave the track list (template or list) blank. If its discussed in a reliably sourced article after such as the Guardian, this can be spoken about in prose or a notes section. I don't understand how this has stretched out so much. The consensus is if there is a simple track list then the template isn't required. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You can stop pinging me. I think this whole discussion is a giant time-waster on a non-issue. I'm unlikely to give any other input on it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

They are also mixing two different topics. Nearly incomprehensible. Just ignore them. Οἶδα (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bat Out of Hell III: The Monster Is Loose

Bat Out of Hell III: The Monster Is Loose has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Bot to help identify album pages missing infoboxes

Howdy folks, I made a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 86#ID pages needing infoboxes for a bot to locate pages in this project that have no infobox and place them into Category:Album articles without infoboxes by adding |needs-infobox=yes to the project template. Any thoughts on the pro's/con's of this effort? Thanks! J04n(talk page) 19:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea! Good luck with the false positives! TlonicChronic (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Lists on Pitchfork (website)

Over the last few weeks I have completely rewritten and expanded the Pitchfork (website) article.

I'm not sure what to do about the various lists on the page, so I've started a talk page discussion at Talk:Pitchfork_(website)#Lists. Anyone wants to chime in, I'm all ears. Popcornfud (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sony database of album release dates

Does Sony have a public database of album release dates? For a long time, there was confusion regarding the release date of Bob Dylan's 1966 album Blonde on Blonde. Clinton Heylin settled the matter in his 2017 book Judas!, writing that "a Sony database of album release dates, for all titles in the vinyl era, confirms once and for all that it came out on June 20 1966 ..." (p. 288n54; my emphasis). Does any know what database he is talking about? My sense is that it is not public information, but I hold out hope that it is available somewhere. Tkbrett (✉) 15:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Assistance with Draft:Growing Up (The Linda Lindas album)

Dear members of WP:Albums,

I have a draft I have been working on (linked in title), and I'm not sure how well it's going. It looks good to me, just not ready to be submitted. Could I have any advice or help with the page?

Thanks, ΛΣ (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this 100% is ready to be in the main namespace. It has some omissions, but it's perfectly valid as an article. Great job. If you want to make it stronger, add the cover and some alt text for it, expand the critical reception, and if you can, have third party sources about the recording, promotion, and any assessment of the music, along with fair use music clips as there are sources for it (i.e. don't just include a clip to say "Here's 30 seconds of a song" but something like "Here's a guitar solo that several critics have noted shows the growth in the band's technique" or "The change in production shows in this chorus that allows the band's vocals to stand out in the mix"). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This already clears notability without question so you should be fine to promote it even though it's short. There is, as koavf said, plenty of room for expansion, but you can submit it now and get to that expansion when you get a chance. It's plenty likely you'll get back to it before it even gets reviewed and it'll be in even better shape then. The one thing that koavf said which needs clarification is that you can't add non-free images to drafts, so that's gonna have to wait until it's in mainspace. You can write the alt text ahead of time though; it just won't display without the image there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, good point: once you move it to the main namespace, add the cover image, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Submitted, sending thanks to both of you! ΛΣ (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

List of best-selling albums RFC

I have started a RFC for List of best-selling albums regarding its current methodology. Please feel free to post any feedback. Erick (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Join Hands

Hi, all. There is some disagreement, confusion, and edit warring at this Siouxsie album page. I had removed the "favourable", etc., lines from the ratings box, as it was my understanding that said box is only for grades, ratings, and scores, especially where, as in this case, the Melody Maker, NME, and Record Mirror reviews are quoted in the text, and moved the full citation to those quotes if it wasn't already there. Wasn't there a discussion about this a few years back? Was there a resolution? I think the main argument was to keep out non-ratings where quotations could be used in critical reception prose, while also discouraging editors from arguing, in the ratings box context, whether a review was "positive" or "very positive", for example. Or maybe I'm completely wrong--I'm in the U.S., so don't know if "favourable" was an actual rating used by those periodicals. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of past consensus, I personally do not think those should be there. "Favourable" – and especially "very favourable", which that article uses twice – have always come off to me as editors applying their own opinion of what a source says without the source actually saying that. And it comes off as just trying to fill out the template which really isn't necessary or adding any information that the pullquotes can't provide. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually per Template:Music ratings, they need to be removed. "It cannot capture the general sense of a review that does not include any kind of scale, so do not include language like "Very favorable" or "(mixed)" in the template, as this would be original research." – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do remove interpretations from the table and use prose to explain what the critic wrote. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC: The Needle Drop...again. Reliable source status

Another year and another appeal for The Needle Drop to be considered for Generally reliable sources status.

If you were to use the Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist for Anthony Fantano as a source for reviews and music review templates:

The author

• Does the author have a Wikipedia article? - yes and confirms notability from reliable mainstream sources.
• What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience? - he has a degree in liberal studies and hosted a music review show on WNPR from 2007 until 2014. He was offered a review program on mainstream TV station Adult Swim and has recently interviewed notable artists in a professional capacity such as James Blake, Ghostface Killah, Drake and Beach House
• What else has the author published? - he has been published in The Washington Post [4]
• Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works? he has been cited in the New York Times[5] which is a reliable source.
• How does the author make a living? - music journalism.
• What about reputation? Are there any big character markers? - see New York Times and Washington Post articles above.

I would like to compare another internet reviewer to The Needle Drop that was approved by the Wikipedia community - Consequence.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 43 - Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 256 - Wikipedia

Consequence (formally Consequence of Sound) was cited as a Reliable and Generally reliable source based on:

• "significant coverage by reliable third-party organizations"
• The status of being a professional reviewer based on Consequence making an income from their work.
• Being cited as a source in Wikipedia articles.
• Being listed on Metacritic.

The Needle Drop meets all of these criteria except being listed on Metacritic. I don't think it is reasonable to disqualify The Needle Drop based on not being included in a review aggregator. Many professional and respected professional critics are not, practically reviews that are not printed online (which includes TV, newspaper, review books).

In RfC: The Needle Drop, many editors generally raised a "no" vote based on YouTube being "self-published". However, the 2020 RfC on YouTube it was voted that YouTube is a platform and not a publisher.

Further to this, under the criteria of "self-published source":

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I don't believe in The Needle Drop's album or song reviews they have expressed claims that would disqualify them from being used as a source.

In the context of a music reviews, I don't see any reason why The Needle Drop's reviews cannot be used on Wikipedia. Anthony Fantano is clearly a professional music critic with a formal education in the arts and years of professional experience.

Given the notability demonstrated as a source for reviews by mainstream and reliable sources, exclusion of his reviews due to him hosting reviews in a video format on a public platform like YouTube in 2024 is no longer a valid interpretation of Wikipedia's Reliable sources guidelines. Paulisdead (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but what about editorial control? That's also something that Consequence has that Fantano doesn't. He's just one guy, aside from his work which was published in TWP, and I know that is going to be highlighted as one of the reasons why editors won't be enthusiastic about this proposal. Also, isn't reviewing music qualifying as "making claims about third parties"? Or do the works of such parties not qualify? For posterity, I am neither for nor against including the Needle Drop as a reliable source at this time. I just have questions. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem. That is why I wanted to start the discussion again to hammer this out.

The context of The Needle Drop being a reliable source is based on his reviews. In general reviews are not peer-reviewed or subject to editorial control. If they were, they would no longer be the opinion or assessment of that critic.

Continuing with the Consequence comparison, Alex Young (founder of Consequence) was once also running a one-man operation. Young still owns the site but still writes articles for the site. Although Fantano may appear to be a "one-man operation" in the old school YouTuber sense, the truth is (like most popular YouTuber's), he has a team working for him. Consequence is clearly a bigger company than The Needle Drop (a staff of twenty-nine verses The Needle Drop's 3). Because Young's site has a bigger staff these days, it should not be the only qualify that Consequence as a more reliable source while The Needle Drop is not. The Needle Drop has an equal notable public profile, music industry trust (demonstrated by the high-profile musicians interviewed by him), a smaller company should not be a disqualifying factor.

Regarding, "Making claims about third parties", this is different from an opinion piece or a review. Taking into good faith the indented definition, unless Fantano was making statements like "musician x is not playing on singing on this album" or other such statements without evidence (which I believe he has not).

I understand that editors will be hesitant because of a possible "slippery slope" effect, but there is enough evidence that The Needle Drop is a respected music critic within both demonstrated music industry and public respect and trust. He clearly has surpassed the well-intended hobbyist with a personal vlog.

Since previous disqualifiers in relation to self-publishing have been overturned, the decision on whether The Needle Drop qualifies as a Reliable source should only be based on Fantano's creditable and reputation as a professional music journalist. There is enough evidence to support this. Paulisdead (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Paulisdead I don't have a thorough understanding of discussions relating to The Needle Drop but I can't see how a lot of your points makes sense or apply, here's some examples:

1. The point of "Does the author have a Wikipedia article" or "significant coverage by reliable third-party organizations" mentioned has little correlation to reliability.
2. The examples from the linked discussion on Concequence also mention "editorial oversight" and "large paid staff".
3. Searching "self-published" on the 2020 RfC you've mentioned above seems to say most videos like his are self published, yes it is a "platform and not a publisher", users thus self-publish the videos.

On what is written above, he does have a group of people working for him, but none of the people have a say on the content of the channel or what he says. This is not editorial oversight. The other editor listed on the link above reports to Anthony Fantano as the managing editor. Justiyaya 13:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Justiyaya thank you for the reply. I'll be glad to address your points and clarify my original post:

1. The point of "Does the author have a Wikipedia article" or "significant coverage by reliable third-party organizations" mentioned has little correlation to reliability.

The correlation expressed was in relation to the article Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist and guidelines given to check if an author is a potential reliable source. In my original reply, I used this checklist's criteria and gave relevant examples point-by-point.

2. The examples from the linked discussion on Concequence also mention "editorial oversight" and "large paid staff".

Reviews essentially fall under the category of opinions pieces and aren't held to the same standards requiring "editorial oversight" as factual reporting. The difference being that the review is coming from an expert source. Which Fantano's reputation as a music critic and years of experience in radio, print and online qualifies him as an expert source. This ties into why I used Concequence as an example. While Alex Young built the company and brand in the beginning as a one-man operation, the company grew with a bigger staff. Like Fantano, he not only still writes for the site and produces videos, but he is still the head of the company (Publisher & Founder is his current title). If the only different between Concequence and The Needle Drop is how many people each founder has working underneath them, then a "large paid staff" isn't really a valid metric when talking about which source is reliable and which isn't.

3. Searching "self-published" on the 2020 RfC you've mentioned above seems to say most videos like his are self published, yes it is a "platform and not a publisher", users thus self-publish the videos.

According to Wikipedia's guidelines, being self-published by itself is not a disqualifier. There are exceptions that state that a "Self-published expert source may be considered reliable.". I believe I have offered sufficient evidence of Fantano's career as a professional music critic (I will cite more if anyone here is still not convinced). He clearly qualifies as an expert given the metrics of stated by Wikipedia.

Paulisdead (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem, which your overview glosses over, is that a vast majority of his work is not published, but self-published. Still very much so in the unreliable camp. He's still essentially a YouTuber, albeit a popular one. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 with respect - I don’t believe in good faith I did gloss over The Needle Drop being Self-published. If you refer to the article on Self-published sources, being Self-published alone doesn’t disqualifies a source if the source is “an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

The Needle Drop and Anthony Fantano clearly check enough boxes in the guidelines to be considered an established subject matter expert. Paulisdead (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

We all have our own opinions and standards. The combination of "self-published" and "no editorial oversight" is a no for me. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I would like to offer a final counter to your final points as it has been mentioned here a few times by others and I didn't expand on these points in my original post:

• I have pointed out that Wikipedia allows expectations to the rules on Self-published sources. I will repost the link here: Self-published sources.
• Under the guidelines for Self-published sources in the article, there is an exemption for:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

The qualifiers outlined in my original post shows there is enough proof of Fantano being considered an "established subject-matter expert". - taking into account the criteria, is there any doubt or counter argument from the editors that The Needle Drop does not qualify as a "established subject-matter expert"?

• Being Self-published does mean The Needle Drop lacks "editorial oversight", but the nature of Self-publishing and the allowance given to "established subject-matter experts" addresses this.
• Another point is the context an editor would cite The Needle Drop. If cited for reviews and not factual reporting, then "editorial oversight" is irrelevant as reviews and opinions are not typically held to "editorial oversight" standards. They are opinions from experts. The "no" case should be based on whether it can be proved Fanatno isn't an "established subject-matter expert".
• If I'm mistaken in my comments on editorial oversight - could the editors, please give an example of how editorial oversight is used for a review of an album? It is generally understood that is the opinions a creditable review should come from a writer how is an "established subject-matter expert", meaning the opinions expressed are a by source with a demonstrated and established knowledge of the subject matter.

Paulisdead (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It goes without saying that Anthony Fantano is one of the most influential music critics around today, regardless of whether he publishes his reviews on YouTube. He started way back in the early 2010s and has grown a pretty solid following since then, and his reviews on some of the bigger releases in music (whether To Pimp a Butterfly or Certified Lover Boy generate a pretty solid amount of attention. Hell, him giving My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy a 6/10 is still talked about and ridiculed to this day. Unlike other music reviewers on YouTube he does have actual credibility: like Paulisdead said, he has professional experience and has interviewed some big names in music.

If we want to look at it in terms of WP:SELFPUBLISHED, the majority of Robert Christgau's reviews that were once published in magazines like The Village Voice are now all on his own website, and many older articles on WP are linked to that website. Does that not constitute SELFPUBLISHED? (in a sense). The point is, if Fantano was any other writer on any other publication I feel like we wouldn't question whether to include his reviews, but because they're on YouTube it's a problem. In the sense, yes, he is just a YouTuber. But as pointed out above, he has written for The Washington Post, and has shown credibility in terms of music knowledge. Maybe it's time to reconsider things... – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Self-published, pertaining to platforms, really has nothing to do with it—as Serge mentioned, Fantano, all these years since the last major discussion, appears to have not done anything about editorial oversight. But there's also no indication that he's a subject matter expert who can be trusted to do the research—just that he's a popular YouTuber. I've watched dozens of his reviews over the years; on a completely subjective front, some were amusing, some were annoying, hardly any were insightful. Unlike Christgau, Fantano has not spent decades having his work edited; he has not spent decades editing the work of others (for Christgau, Nelson George, Greg Tate, Chuck Eddy, etc.). We're really going to hang our hat on an opinion piece, an article that's chiefly about his popularity, and his radio station internship (per the TNYT)...? Times change, and I'm not opposed to citing generic opinions, like "it's good" or "better than her last album," but he shouldn't be used for any sort of factual statement, including innocuous things that could just be sourced to liner notes. I understand that ageism may play a part; Fantano is knocked because, unlike Christgau, he hasn't been covered by RS for decades; Christgau is knocked for writing about pop and hip hop as an 81-year-old (and as someone who is open about his dislike for certain genres, like metal). It's also not fair to knock Fantano's superficiality while ignoring Christgau's more dashed-off "honorable mentions" and symbol (I've gritted my teeth the few times I've added that). Not that I want this to turn into a binary: George, Greil Marcus, Craig Seymour, etc., also do the self-publishing thing. The only hang-up is that I can't really discern how Fantano was handled at WNPR, but as of now: unreliable beyond generic endorsements or pans. Caro7200 (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the emphasis on editorial oversight is misplaced in the context of music reviews. Even in mainstream outlets, reviews, opinion pieces and editorials are typically not subjected to editorial oversight. They are the opinions of the writer rather than reported fact. This is why you see "Opinion" or "Editorial" written under the heading. It's a disclaimer that this is not a statement of fact but the opinion of the writer. If anything, an editor telling a critic to alter their opinion would be against the integrity of that critic.

As Zmbro pointed out, Robert Christgau is a respected music critic, but he is also, in this context, self-published. Yes, he uses a publisher, but that publisher has zero input to his opinions and reviews. His books have been independently written and edited by him for over 40 years. He publishes on his own web site. He doesn't have an editor looking reviewing his work saying, "I think you were a bit harsh on that album, it should be an A-". If anything, that would be betraying the trust of the public and discredit him or any critic of their expert opinion.

I'll use Alex Young again as an example. He the Publisher & Founder of the site but still writes op-eds. There is a Features Editor for articles, Editorial Director for content, but none of them would be looking over Young's shoulder saying "Is that what you think about that album boss? I think we should peer-review that".

Talk about editorial oversight is also irrelevant to the guidelines offered by Wikipedia in the context and spirit of music criticism. In good faith, it's not a reason to block reviews from any high-profile and respected music critic.

Which brings me again to the issue around Self-Published. The issue of YouTube has been sufficiently addressed and it has been agreed in 2020 RfC on YouTube that YouTube is a platform and not a publisher.

In the spirit of this, hosting content on YouTube should no longer be used as a disqualifier. If YouTube was a publisher, then that would tar every video with the same brush. It would put every video on the same level as every conspiracy theorist. But it has been agreed by the community that YouTube is a platform. It hosts content, in the same way as that Wordpress or Squarespace can host a website. As this has already been addressed, it's also not a disqualifier.

I refer everyone again to the guidelines of Self-published sources:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

That fact that we're all talking about Fantano means he is clearly an "established" expert. Using this he has been "published in a reliable independent source".[6] and his work was writing "in the relevant field" (in this case - music).

As established by Wikipedia, being Self-Published is not an instant disqualifier. Tread with caution - yes. You shouldn't cite Fantano's opinions on movies or sport, but as it is clear that The Needle Drop meets the exceptions given by Wikipedia's guidelines on the matter if it's his reviews being cited in an article. Paulisdead (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Caro7200 I do have some information in regard to Fantano's time at WNPR that may clear some things up.

• Fantano hosted The Needle Drop on WNPR from 2007 until 2014.
• The program was syndicated throughout the NPR network.
• He worked with NPR and also had a producer role.
• Working with NPR programmers and would mean The Needle Drop had editorial oversight from NPR's Public Editor.
• NPR has been listed under Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia - "There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPR's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution."
• The attribution in the context an editor would cite The Needle Drop would be stating that it is a review (i.e. opinion).

Paulisdead (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing the conversation carefully following my initial responses from last night, I have to say that I don't think a smaller company should necessarily be a disqualifying factor. However, I do think it should affect how much weight we put on his opinion. It doesn't really stand out as something we couldn't use dozens of other sources over, in most cases. I should note that it is still possible to be a "respected music critic within both demonstrated music industry and public respect and trust" while still being a "well-intended hobbyist", though I'm not necessarily saying I agree on the latter. It just looks like it because, contrary to what is insinuated above, editorial oversight is necessary. Of course reviews are supposed to be subject to editorial control. Anyone can make objective statements within it, such as the example Paul gave above: "musician x is not playing on singing on this album". Casual statements like these are why you need it. Facts are expressed in reviews. As zmbro and Caro have pointed out, every good critic gets editorial attention. It should be used with care in regards to due weight, but I hesitantly say potentially reliable? If not now, I'm sure it will be in the future. dannymusiceditor ^oops 00:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor thank you for consideration.

Absolutely agree that The Needle Drop should be used with care when being used in articles. If citations were used for:

• Criticisms of musical works related in the article.
• Scores given in reviews.

then The Needle Drop meets the exceptions given in the criteria for Self-published sources. If a video-essay from The Needle Drop was used as a citation, then the lack of editorial oversight argument is completely relevant and could be seen as an issue. Much in the way that any op-ed piece shouldn't be quoted as reporting facts. In that context, you would be more considered in using him as a reliable source.

However, for music reviews, music criticism or scores used in Professional Reviewer templates, the above evidence does show that The Needle Drop meets the criteria set out by various Wikipedia guidelines as a "Self-published expert source (that) may be considered reliable." Paulisdead (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we're talking around each other--YouTube and self-publishing aren't strictly the issues. If Jessica Hopper or Amanda Petrusich were the ones with shows, for example, it wouldn't be a problem. There isn't yet consensus that Fantano is a subject matter expert or an expert source. Reliable sources mostly cover him as an entertainer/personality, while noting his popularity and the format of his reviews. It seems inevitable that articles will eventually include his opinions ... but because his popularity will make it perverse not to. And, again, that's fine, so long as they stick generally to like/dislike sentiments. Good points have been brought up, maybe for another thread. It seems unhelpful to exclude a long, knowledgeable, considered review from a "hobbyist", two-person operation, where the writers have been published in RS occasionally (there are a few jazz sites like this), but to give a pass to, say, a Los Angeles Times review that doesn't rise much above "the fans will love this one" or "the guitar playing is awesome." And, yeah, a lot of arts editors at RS may not be doing a whole lot beyond checking for they're/there/their-esque things... Caro7200 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the NY Times profile, being published in other RSes, and having experience as an NPR host for 7 years qualifies Fantano as a subject matter expert. That said, I agree that other sources should be used to cite factual statements, unless it comes from one of his interviews, which would likely be reliable.

As an aside, the channel is not a one-man operation. He has a managing editor who goes mononymously by "Austen". The YouTube about infobox says that Austen is responsible for "proofing" and "publishing". It's possible that he also fact-checks the writing. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Voorts for the info about The Needle Drop’s Managing Editor.

I was thinking about this a bit more in terms of old vs new media. If you take well known magazines from the early of rock criticism like Rolling Stone or Crawdaddy. Before these were mass print magazines, they were the only serious publications talking about contemporary music. They grew as big and as respected as they did because they built trust overtime with people that listen to contemporary music.

While not a massive corporation like RS is toady (over 50 years later), it’s pretty safe to say that with the currently 2.82 million people subscribed to The Needle Drop (which isn’t counting those that watch his reviews and don’t subscribe), its well past the same level something like Crawdaddy was when it could of been considered a “fanzine”.

In 2024 if you want an album review from a trusted critic of music that’s not just mainstream pop, it’s either Pitchfork or The Needle Drop. Millennials and Gen Z don’t see reviews in a video format as lesser than print. In Spin’s article on Fantano, they reported in between mid-September to mid-October 2016 he had 5.1 million views on his channel.[7] The recent statistics on HypeAuditor report around 382.3K in the past 30 days. Compare to the total audience of Rolling Stone in Fall 2022 of 17,600. [8]

If your reviews have more music fans eyeballs on them than Rolling Stone and we’re talking about music reviews and music op-ed pieces aimed at serious fans of contemporary music, then clearly that shows the respect and trust as a critic that Fantano has with music fans. Paulisdead (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)