Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 74
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 70 | ← | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 |
About WP:FUTUREALBUM
This section of the guideline (Wikipedia:Notability (music) § Future material) was boldly rewritten in August 2023 by Doomsdayer520. He opened this discussion on this WikiProject's talk page after making the changes. I disagree with the change to the guideline as it places several unnecessary conditions (such as a tracklist and cover art) on top of the notability requirements for other albums, and is one of the very few guidelines to exceed the requirements of the general notability guideline. The only similar guideline is the one for unreleased films, which requires the project to have begun principal photography. This is not comparable to the burden currently placed on unreleased albums; just in the last two weeks, I've dealt with multiple articles on albums that had plentiful significant coverage in sources, singles released in promotion, and pre-orders open, but had to be kept in draftspace due to the lack of tracklists.
I propose to rewrite this section without the stringent additional requirements or revert to its previous version. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I definitely disagree with reverting to the prior version as I think Doomsdayer's original point about having the policies separate is still a good one. However, I do agree that the requirements Doomsdayer laid forth are overly restrictive and also not how I've ever seen upcoming album articles handled. Calling an album non-notable just because it doesn't have released cover art yet makes no sense to me. Hell, there are multiple untitled album articles currently in Category:Upcoming albums (Paris Hilton, Nas/DJ Premier, Anuel AA and Ozuna, Megan Thee Stallion, and Playboi Carti) about which I have seen no objections, and given the amount of coverage they all have, I wouldn't object to them either. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Responses from the bold:
- I did not make up the requirements for cover art and a track list in 2023. Those had been sitting in the essay WP:HAMMER for at least 15 years, and even though that is an essay, it has often been cited in unreleased album AfDs.
- Before I modified the policy it mixed up multiple types of albums into one big rule -- those being near-future albums (the main point here), albums that had been started by the musician but never completed, and those that had been completed but never released. Those were all clumped into one single policy requirement called "unreleased albums" and the result was lots of misguided album AfDs. As proof of how rickety and inflexible the policy statement was, the 2008 Guns n' Roses album was still being used as an example for all of the above.
- The previous version of the policy jumbled up different aspects of WP:CRYSTAL and the aforementioned WP:HAMMER incoherently, which I endeavored to straighten out.
- I did something bold because the policy had been built by many people with bits and pieces over many years to the point of incoherence. I have no problem with anyone else doing something bold, as long as that bold move looks forward. Reverting to the version from before my update would simply restore errors that had been there for years and years because nobody else fixed them. Fix again if you like, but it's not 2008 anymore.
- Despite the wall of text that we have built so far, it appears that the only real objection above is the call for cover art before a near-future album is considered notable. Why not just change that? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't necessarily feel that you were wrong to rewrite the guideline, I simply disagree with some of the changes. I understand that most of them were constructive, which is why I recommended an amendment of the guideline before a revert. My objection is not just about the cover art, but to all of the additional requirements placed in this guideline. The notability of upcoming albums can be determined in exactly the same way as we do for any other album: checking for significant coverage in reliable sources. Whether or not the artist or record label has confirmed "critical information" is of no relevance to whether the subject deserves an encyclopedic article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- In that case it looks like the only major objection is with the phrase "This must include the title, cover image, release date..." Perhaps the answer is to change must to something like should or preferably as long as it's all in reliable sources. By the way, I believe "must" was in the guideline before I expanded it, but I probably added the italics. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm looking more towards the removal of the first paragraph in its entirety and replacing it with standard notability language similar to the general notability guideline or criterion 1 of § Recordings. As I mentioned earlier, whether or not the artist or label have confirmed any information is irrelevant when determining the subject's notability. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that "critical information" is a nonviable term, so no big loss. But we still need something about what qualities make a near-future album a real thing and not just fan trivia. Also, go back to the history in August 2023, and you will find that my point then was that there were too many misguided deletion nominations for near-future albums for which there was info found in reliable sources. That was because of the previously vague policy allusions to WP:CRYSTAL and the like, and clarification was an improvement no matter how you sling it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is already covered by the requirement for reliable sources, as I think we can trust established publications not to publish vapid speculation of the kind that you'd see on a fan site. Self-published sources are already discounted from any notability considerations, and no argument of a blog or fan site demonstrating notability would be taken seriously at AfD. Also, the language used in the third paragraph ("consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation ... is a violation of Wikipedia's crystal ball rule") is fine by me; I don't intend to alter that part. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is probably the best summary of my thoughts as well. The first criteria of NALBUM is that the article meets GNG; why not let that be the standard? If we've got substantial coverage coming in from multiple reliable sources then why should anything else matter so much? And again, in my experience, this is how these articles have been handled consistently anyway. I've seen upcoming albums redirected/draftified for lack of coverage, but not for any other reason, and I can't imagine only saying "This has no announced tracklist/cover art" would go over that well in an AfD. A change in specific language might be helpful, but I still think it's focusing on the wrong thing. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is already covered by the requirement for reliable sources, as I think we can trust established publications not to publish vapid speculation of the kind that you'd see on a fan site. Self-published sources are already discounted from any notability considerations, and no argument of a blog or fan site demonstrating notability would be taken seriously at AfD. Also, the language used in the third paragraph ("consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation ... is a violation of Wikipedia's crystal ball rule") is fine by me; I don't intend to alter that part. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- In that case it looks like the only major objection is with the phrase "This must include the title, cover image, release date..." Perhaps the answer is to change must to something like should or preferably as long as it's all in reliable sources. By the way, I believe "must" was in the guideline before I expanded it, but I probably added the italics. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Responses from the bold:
- Since a day has gone by and there seems to be a rough consensus for this change, I went ahead and made this edit to the section. I welcome any suggestions for copyediting or further clarification. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Albums by recording location container cats
I've noticed that the subcategories of Category:Albums by recording location are inconsistently labeled as {{container cat}}s, e.g. Category:Live albums recorded in Australia and Category:Live albums recorded in Sydney both are while Category:Live albums recorded in Argentina and Category:Live albums recorded in Buenos Aires are not. Is there a reason for this discrepancy? Should they remain as such? Personally, I think album articles are already noticeably limited in the number of available categories they can be placed in compared to most other article types (most of the album articles I've created have 3-7), and it doesn't appear like it would hurt to open those up. I've been thinking recently about what additional album categories could be created because of this, and I think this could be a good place to start. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- An album recorded in a certain city is not defining and should be a container but at a certain venue or studio is defining and should contain articles directly. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- So you think the cats I mentioned that aren't labeled should be? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- 100%. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- So you think the cats I mentioned that aren't labeled should be? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Koavf on how the categorization is currently applied. However, I always found it odd that Category:Albums recorded at Abbey Road Studios was deleted at CfD as what could be considered one of the more defining studios at which an album could be recorded, yet the larger scheme continues. For example, I don't think an album being recorded at Capitol Studios or A&M Studios (or other corporate studio locations) are at all defining to the albums that were recorded there. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that one I don't get either. I almost recreated it the other day but after seeing the discussions I changed my mind, but I would not be opposed to it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Articles assessment table
So now that we have taken out the "importance" parameter (which I agree with) from this table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Statistics, does anyone know if there is any way of modifying the table so that we only see the quality assessment in a single column, similar to that at WP:SONGS? It would be a lot better as the current table is a mess with all the red links. Richard3120 (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is done by a bot and when we decided years ago to remove the importance feature, I made a request to change the bot's output and no one answered. :/ So as of now I think we're stuck. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Koavf: and everyone else – I had a word, and I think we're sorted now. :-) Richard3120 (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Who Killed...... The Zutons?#Requested move 8 May 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Who Killed...... The Zutons?#Requested move 8 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 20:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One
Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One 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. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Apple Music's list
Is the recently top 100 albums from Apple Music allowed to be referenced in the pages of albums that made the list? Cahlin29 (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm gonna say no in so far as we don't consider Apple Music a reliable publication, but I know others which we do consider reliable have covered at least part of the list so those may be okay. Given how much of the list consists of all-time popular/acclaimed albums though, I'm not sure there's much point in including it since those articles probably already have a dozen other lists each saying the same thing. It's a drop in the bucket. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, that's fair, thanks for taking the time to respond. Cahlin29 (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's an interesting list though, I can imagine that it's caused a lot of debate seeing how it's left out so many of the acknowledged "classics". As a Brit, I find the inclusion of Sade in this list and the Rolling Stone 500 albums fascinating... the Americans seem to love her, but in her native UK her albums have been all but forgotten since the 1990s. Richard3120 (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Although I see now that an editor has started adding the list to those albums anyway... Richard3120 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Given the amount of attention the list has gotten, that does not surprise me in the slightest. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Although I see now that an editor has started adding the list to those albums anyway... Richard3120 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's an interesting list though, I can imagine that it's caused a lot of debate seeing how it's left out so many of the acknowledged "classics". As a Brit, I find the inclusion of Sade in this list and the Rolling Stone 500 albums fascinating... the Americans seem to love her, but in her native UK her albums have been all but forgotten since the 1990s. Richard3120 (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, that's fair, thanks for taking the time to respond. Cahlin29 (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Re-recorded albums
I wanted to write stuff on a re-recorded album on my favourite band Coldrain who have just released a re-recorded Final Destination for its fifteenth anniversary. I wasn't sure if I was meant to add it to the original article or make it its article, per what's been done with Taylor Swift's re-releases. But I figured that was down to because there was so much information available on those re-recordings or whatnot. What is the general consensus for bands who do re-recordings of their albums? Make it their own article or just add it to the original article? A bit puzzled on what to do, and I can't find any information on this either so figured this is what I should have done by asking this question here, so sorry if it's not in the appropriate place. I would greatly appreciate a response, thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- The current article is pretty much a stub with a tracklist, so I'd just add it there. There's no need for a separate article when the current one is so bare bones. Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- To add on to that, re-recorded albums (1989 (Taylor's Version), Red (Taylor's Version)) and reissue albums (The Fame Monster and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded) are only notable in their own rites if they have significant enough coverage. As Sergecross said, the Coldrain album is basically a stub/start class article so you can just add the re-recording to the same page. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Album title that can't be typed
So the article on Patrick Moraz's first solo album is located at The Story of I, but for those of you who don't know, "The Story of I" is not the actual title of the album. In fact, while it is unquestionably the album's WP:COMMONNAME, the phrase "The Story of I" doesn't appear anywhere on the album or its original packaging, so I can only guess how anyone came up with it. The reason why people don't use the real title is more obvious: it's an unpronounceable symbol which doesn't appear on any conventional keyboard.
While the article's name is fine as it is (again, WP:COMMONNAME), it seems like the real title of the album should at least be mentioned in the article, but though I've seen articles use such non-standard symbols, I don't know how one goes about adding them. Can anyone help me here? (Also, if by chance someone has handy sourced info about how and why "The Story of I" became the generally understood title for the album, that would be terrific.) Martin IIIa (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I know loosely if what you're talking about, but I'm afraid I don't know how to do it with a keyboard either. Is it used anywhere online in reviews or discogs text or anything? Sometimes even if you can't type it, you can copy/paste it (depending on what it is.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- The only site I've ever run across which uses the symbol does so through an embedded image. Is there a way to add an image to a Wikipedia article such that it appears as part of the prose (rather than breaking up the paragraph the way a normal thumbnail image would)? Martin IIIa (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is pretty much a Love Symbol case. File:Prince logo.svg was determined to be exclusively used on Prince (musician)'s page as at some point he used it as an alternative name. His biography's running text has an example on how the image can be used as part of the prose. Keep in mind that this logo is likely to be copyrighted (despite its simplicity) and that The Story of I has too many copyrighted files already. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'd been planning to remove the images of the inner gatefold and inner sleeve anyway since they don't seem to serve any function in the article; would that help with the copyright issue? It does seem like adding the album's title couldn't make the copyright issue any worse, since a rendering of it already appears in the images of the inner sleeve and front cover. Martin IIIa (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note that I already marked them for deletion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'd been planning to remove the images of the inner gatefold and inner sleeve anyway since they don't seem to serve any function in the article; would that help with the copyright issue? It does seem like adding the album's title couldn't make the copyright issue any worse, since a rendering of it already appears in the images of the inner sleeve and front cover. Martin IIIa (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is pretty much a Love Symbol case. File:Prince logo.svg was determined to be exclusively used on Prince (musician)'s page as at some point he used it as an alternative name. His biography's running text has an example on how the image can be used as part of the prose. Keep in mind that this logo is likely to be copyrighted (despite its simplicity) and that The Story of I has too many copyrighted files already. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- The only site I've ever run across which uses the symbol does so through an embedded image. Is there a way to add an image to a Wikipedia article such that it appears as part of the prose (rather than breaking up the paragraph the way a normal thumbnail image would)? Martin IIIa (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Album of the Year
Would Album of the Year (AOTY) be reliable as a critic aggregator? The website clearly separates professional critic reviews from user reviews. — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- This has been discussed before and was agreed to not be good as a direct source, since they have no editorial standards. It is very useful for finding reliable sources to add here (note that not all sources they use are considered reliable) and should be added to d:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's already listed on WP:NOTRSMUSIC, along with a link to the discussion that got it listed there. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Too Many Humans.....#Requested move 17 May 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Too Many Humans.....#Requested move 17 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Il Mare Calmo della Sera#Requested move 27 May 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Il Mare Calmo della Sera#Requested move 27 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
To address issues with this article's length, I have opened a discussion at Talk:Illmatic#Split proposal that may be of interest to this WikiProject. — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Tradfolk
Is this source acceptable as a WP:RS for album reviews? Here's a recent example. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Leaning no. One of the best ways to tell the reliability of a publication is by seeing that their writers also feature in other reliable pubs, thus establishing them as subject-matter experts. In this case, I could find that, per this site's author bios, Gavin McNamara has written for the Big Issue and Metal Hammer and editor Jon Wilks (bio) has written for a handful of reliables. Past that, I didn't see anything of the sort. It may help that Wilks is himself (maybe) notable enough for his own article, at least for his music career, but its hitting at a bare minimum level that is too close for comfort for me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Related to this discussion--what's the best practice for an article like Ship to Shore? All the ratings are shoved in the prose, instead of using the ratings template, which seems like the worst of all options as it leads to a clunky and ugly section (in my opinion). I think the template is useful, but I've also declined to add it a few times, and just didn't mention ratings at all. Is this regarded as a personal, status quo editorial choice? Does the community have a policy if an editor chooses to add a template (I don't plan on it, but it seems inevitable)? Cheers to Justin and Martin (and the great Richard Thompson), just thought it was best to start here... Caro7200 (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps best to have a discussion Talk:Ship to Shore (Richard Thompson album)? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I think it's an issue that pertains to the entire project. This seems to be a relatively new trend (albeit a rarely used one): editors wanting to mention many ratings in prose rather than starting with a ratings template. I don't think it's a helpful choice, but my guess is that it isn't wrong for, in this case, Justin, to decline to use one, just as it isn't against policy for another editor to decide eventually to shift up to 10 ratings to an added template. Caro7200 (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sure it's a good idea to discuss that. Somewhere I just wanted a discussion and consensus view on Tradfolk. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Caro7200 this page is a good venue for this discussion, but it's off-topic regarding the query Martin came in with and should've been given its own section, which you could always do now and just link back here for context. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I think it's an issue that pertains to the entire project. This seems to be a relatively new trend (albeit a rarely used one): editors wanting to mention many ratings in prose rather than starting with a ratings template. I don't think it's a helpful choice, but my guess is that it isn't wrong for, in this case, Justin, to decline to use one, just as it isn't against policy for another editor to decide eventually to shift up to 10 ratings to an added template. Caro7200 (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
ratings template v. use in prose
As, uh, mentioned only slightly above this thread:
What's the best practice for an article like Ship to Shore? All the ratings are shoved in the prose, instead of using the ratings template, which seems like the worst of all options as it leads to a clunky and ugly section (in my opinion). I think the template is useful, but I've also declined to add it a few times, and just didn't mention ratings at all. Is this regarded as a personal, status quo editorial choice? Does the community have a policy if an editor chooses to add a template (I don't plan on it, but it seems inevitable)? Cheers to Justin and Martin (and the great Richard Thompson), just thought it was best to start here...
I think it's an issue that pertains to the entire project. This seems to be a relatively new trend (albeit a rarely used one): editors wanting to mention many ratings in prose rather than starting with a ratings template. I don't think it's a helpful choice, but my guess is that it isn't wrong for, in this case, Justin, to decline to use one, just as it isn't against policy for another editor to decide eventually to shift up to 10 ratings to an added template. Caro7200 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that listing scores in prose is discouraged, but I can't seem to find any mentions of it right now. That's certainly how the vast majority of featured articles about albums is written, and FAs are our best articles and examples of how articles should be written. The use of the template is not a requirement, though. As for this specific article, personally, I wouldn't put the template in the current version. On my 1080p screen the infobox already pushed the quote box into track listing section. And I agree with you that in general it's a bad choice and score-filled prose looks clunky. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 16:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- As AstonishingTunesAdmirer said, it's not a requirement (and I doubt we could justifiably make it one), but personally I do find it overcrowds the prose and can make the section difficult to read with all the ratings included there. The express purpose of this template is to reduce this kind of crowding by placing the information in a convenient, off-to-the-side place, and I much prefer having it that way. I don't really see the point in not using it. I'm also not sure I know many editors who don't; I know Koavf never does (a comment as to why would be appreciated and valuable to this discussion), but he's the only one I know of who consistently does so. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I used to add it, but now I much prefer a {{quote-box}} that I think is much more interesting and gives useful context instead of {{music ratings}} which discourages reading the reception section. See To All Trains, for instance, where I think that the quote box there is fun and elucidates something about the album release. And if you add both a quote-box and music ratings, it generally pushes these divs way down into the body of the article. It's just not necessary and generally encourages the wrong kind of behavior, which is not really reading the article. If you really want to know how many stars [outlet] gave an album, I always put what the ratings are in the body of the text, so someone can press Ctrl+f and find that specific score. Does that make any sense? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Makes perfect sense to me and is pretty much exactly what I was expecting you to say. Personally, I find the quote-box being that small and pushed off to the side discourages me from reading, and would rather something like that be included in its own section, but I get what you mean. Definitely can't have both. I do still think the overcrowding of prose is an issue though. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that the quote boxes on Ship to Shore and To All Trains both have fonts at 85% of normal size, just barely at the lower limit allowed by SMALL. I don't know how strict that line is, but scraping that close to it seems like something that perhaps shouldn't be encouraged. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, I hate sub-100% text in principle and usually cannot read it. I agree that it sucks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- As I hope would be clear to others (but isn't always because I am sometimes not so collaborative), please do amend the boxes as they meet best practice or make more sense to you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that the quote boxes on Ship to Shore and To All Trains both have fonts at 85% of normal size, just barely at the lower limit allowed by SMALL. I don't know how strict that line is, but scraping that close to it seems like something that perhaps shouldn't be encouraged. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Makes perfect sense to me and is pretty much exactly what I was expecting you to say. Personally, I find the quote-box being that small and pushed off to the side discourages me from reading, and would rather something like that be included in its own section, but I get what you mean. Definitely can't have both. I do still think the overcrowding of prose is an issue though. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I used to add it, but now I much prefer a {{quote-box}} that I think is much more interesting and gives useful context instead of {{music ratings}} which discourages reading the reception section. See To All Trains, for instance, where I think that the quote box there is fun and elucidates something about the album release. And if you add both a quote-box and music ratings, it generally pushes these divs way down into the body of the article. It's just not necessary and generally encourages the wrong kind of behavior, which is not really reading the article. If you really want to know how many stars [outlet] gave an album, I always put what the ratings are in the body of the text, so someone can press Ctrl+f and find that specific score. Does that make any sense? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words, Caro and your helpful edits: I have seen you correct errors and generally improve articles that I have written, so I am grateful. I have given my reasoning below, but to be clear, I don't object to adding {{music ratings}} nor do I have any ownership over any articles that I write, so if someone such as yourself thinks it's a really good idea to add it, then I wouldn't stand in the way. I'm just not motivated to add it myself. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, likewise, appreciate the explanation. I believe in editorial freedom; the constant struggle for everyone is aligning that with broad acceptance, best practice, policy conventions, blah blah. And maybe part of the problem for new articles--unless you're Beyonce, Taylor, or the Stones--is that most of the initial info is in regard to critical reception, personnel, chart positions. There's not as much about backstory, inspiration, composition, recording, etc., so that many tend to be lopsided, creating weird spacing issues for weeks or months sometimes. Back in the day, Chicago media, at least, would have run general features on Shellac or Albini, RIP (and he was a producer, although I always admired the coyness...). Tours would have started, so there would have also been live reviews. Critical reception bloat may be inevitable--although Cowboy Carter's is pretty compact, given the size of the entire article. I do think some production grains can be sifted from professional reviews, which is worth doing when starting or expanding an article. Maybe British media will soon publish a few general album rollout features on Thompson... Caro7200 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. I wish there were more I could write on recording, release, and promotion, but on 90%+ of articles, there just won't be. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, likewise, appreciate the explanation. I believe in editorial freedom; the constant struggle for everyone is aligning that with broad acceptance, best practice, policy conventions, blah blah. And maybe part of the problem for new articles--unless you're Beyonce, Taylor, or the Stones--is that most of the initial info is in regard to critical reception, personnel, chart positions. There's not as much about backstory, inspiration, composition, recording, etc., so that many tend to be lopsided, creating weird spacing issues for weeks or months sometimes. Back in the day, Chicago media, at least, would have run general features on Shellac or Albini, RIP (and he was a producer, although I always admired the coyness...). Tours would have started, so there would have also been live reviews. Critical reception bloat may be inevitable--although Cowboy Carter's is pretty compact, given the size of the entire article. I do think some production grains can be sifted from professional reviews, which is worth doing when starting or expanding an article. Maybe British media will soon publish a few general album rollout features on Thompson... Caro7200 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think rating scores in prose is improper. It's best to leave the scores themselves to be visually viewed, then reviews laid out in prose. Although like others have said, there is no rule saying you can't, but personal preference I'd want ratings scores in templates not prose. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
AFD input requested
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beastie Boys Square - discussion is stagnant and needs further input. (While it's not explicitly an album, it is tied to one, as it's related to the cover of the album Paul's Boutique.)
Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
PopMatters rating scale
PopMatters returned to a 10-point scale when they migrated their website to WordPress in January 2021. Here are two archives either side of the change (different albums, but the change in scale is clear): Swamp Dogg 2021-01-16, Swamp Dogg 2021-04-23. GanzKnusper (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- PopMatters' entry on RSMUSIC already notes this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I added it 20 minutes ago. I put this here because I didn't want to stick these urls in the edit summary. GanzKnusper (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, my mistake, didn't think to check. Might've helped if you'd mentioned that in the first place, but thank you regardless. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I added it 20 minutes ago. I put this here because I didn't want to stick these urls in the edit summary. GanzKnusper (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Is Latin Beat Magazine defunct?
The website latinbeatmagazine.com has been usurped. The last archive I could find was from October 2021. GanzKnusper (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can't find any evidence that they are still going either, and the fact the website (and its alternative lbmo.com) are dead is not a good sign. They have a Twitter/X account, but I'm not on X so I can't check when their last post was or if they say anything about closing down... the Facebook page hasn't been updated since 2015. Richard3120 (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea, I didn't look on social media. As far as I can tell the most recent post on their Twitter/X account is from 13 November 2015, same as Facebook. GanzKnusper (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- All right, I'll add this info to RSMUSIC. GanzKnusper (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Release date inconsistency
I'll use Back in Business (EPMD album) as an example, but I'd like to get a generalized advice I could apply elsewhere later. A few years ago I changed unsourced release date of September 23 to sourced September 16. Now an editor comes in and changes it back to September 23. I reverted them, but they restored it, claiming that the official artist page on Instagram says it's September 23. I checked and it indeed does say so. However, the first release date source currently in the article is a magazine article from 2009 with compiled data received directly from the label, including release dates. The other sources are a contemporary newspaper and an article from 2008. The dates are important here because in 2012 an IP editor mass changed release dates in numerous articles, including this one. I can't say whether or not it's a case of citogenesis, but now we have several pre-2012 sources saying September 16 (here are a few more contemporary ones [1] [2]; I can't seem to find contemporary sources for September 23 but some newspapers ads do mention that date) and modern day official Instagram of the duo, with whoever running it claiming it's September 23. Who should get the priority here? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 04:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would favour the contemporary, not-self-published source. But could there be something else going on, like release dates in different countries? I'd guess it's not a coincidence that the suggested dates are exactly 1 week apart. In the XXL article you linked, the release date of Ja Rule's Rule 3:36 is also one week out from what the Wiki article (sourced to AllMusic) claims. And AllMusic has totally different months for Whatcha Gonna Do? and He Got Game. GanzKnusper (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- To put things honestly, I like to remind you that the Sep 23 date was from the official social media page for the group, possibly verified as an official page by independent sources, not just any self-published source like you are framing it. To get back to the main focus of the section, I have encountered these situations so much and it drives me crazy in 1980s and 1970s albums, when the only sources for release dates were magazine and newspaper listings and PR. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I always go with the contemporary source. Modern–day sources often don't have the actual data to hand, and in fact a lot of them get their information from Wikipedia, which creates a WP:CIRCULAR sourcing argument. The people running websites and social media will upload whatever information they are told to upload, they are not fact-checking the dates. More than once I've found a band's official website give completely the wrong release date, so I never consider an official website or social media as reliable. Richard3120 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- @GanzKnusper: regarding the fact that the dates are one week apart; both dates are Tuesdays, pre-2015 release day in the US. If it was a release date from a different country, it wouldn't necessarily be on Tuesday. I've actually encountered an even crazier case, where I found sources for 3 different Tuesdays. As for these other examples, they all have something in common: if you check revisions from around 2010, they listed different release dates. AllMusic provides the release date in its sidebar, which is to be avoided per WP:A/S. Sourcing release dates for older albums is the worst, especially after all these unsourced changes stayed up for a decade. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 15:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed – hstorically, release dates were always on Tuesdays in the US, but if the release date was from Europe, it would have been on a Monday... UK release dates for both singles and albums were on Mondays from around 1984–85 until Global Release Day in 2015 changed it to Fridays all around the world. Richard3120 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- More than once I've found a band's official website give completely the wrong release date, so I never consider an official website or social media as reliable. That makes me think of how Bowie's website unearthed "new evidence" from RCA Records that stated The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars came out on June 16, 1972 and not June 6 (as was widely reported for decades before). (June 16 is currently in the infobox and body). To me crap like that makes no sense and only adds more confusion. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Record labels are also hopeless at knowing the release dates of their own records from before the internet era. One of the worst examples is Island Records telling everyone for decades that Nick Drake's Bryter Layter came out on 1 November 1970, to the point that two biographies and Island's own deluxe reissue of the album quote this date. We now know that Island got not only the day wrong, not just the month wrong, but even the year wrong... it was 5 March 1971. Richard3120 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Don't get me started on streaming services on releases prior to the streaming era either. Countless times they can't even get the years right. It kills me when I'm trying to organize/clean up an obscure band's discography... Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Record labels are also hopeless at knowing the release dates of their own records from before the internet era. One of the worst examples is Island Records telling everyone for decades that Nick Drake's Bryter Layter came out on 1 November 1970, to the point that two biographies and Island's own deluxe reissue of the album quote this date. We now know that Island got not only the day wrong, not just the month wrong, but even the year wrong... it was 5 March 1971. Richard3120 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- More than once I've found a band's official website give completely the wrong release date, so I never consider an official website or social media as reliable. That makes me think of how Bowie's website unearthed "new evidence" from RCA Records that stated The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars came out on June 16, 1972 and not June 6 (as was widely reported for decades before). (June 16 is currently in the infobox and body). To me crap like that makes no sense and only adds more confusion. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed – hstorically, release dates were always on Tuesdays in the US, but if the release date was from Europe, it would have been on a Monday... UK release dates for both singles and albums were on Mondays from around 1984–85 until Global Release Day in 2015 changed it to Fridays all around the world. Richard3120 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- @GanzKnusper: regarding the fact that the dates are one week apart; both dates are Tuesdays, pre-2015 release day in the US. If it was a release date from a different country, it wouldn't necessarily be on Tuesday. I've actually encountered an even crazier case, where I found sources for 3 different Tuesdays. As for these other examples, they all have something in common: if you check revisions from around 2010, they listed different release dates. AllMusic provides the release date in its sidebar, which is to be avoided per WP:A/S. Sourcing release dates for older albums is the worst, especially after all these unsourced changes stayed up for a decade. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 15:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I always go with the contemporary source. Modern–day sources often don't have the actual data to hand, and in fact a lot of them get their information from Wikipedia, which creates a WP:CIRCULAR sourcing argument. The people running websites and social media will upload whatever information they are told to upload, they are not fact-checking the dates. More than once I've found a band's official website give completely the wrong release date, so I never consider an official website or social media as reliable. Richard3120 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- To put things honestly, I like to remind you that the Sep 23 date was from the official social media page for the group, possibly verified as an official page by independent sources, not just any self-published source like you are framing it. To get back to the main focus of the section, I have encountered these situations so much and it drives me crazy in 1980s and 1970s albums, when the only sources for release dates were magazine and newspaper listings and PR. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Is the Afropop Worldwide website a reliable source for album reviews?
Many of the reviews on the website are credited to Banning Eyre, a published musicologist. He's also on the team page of their website. He owns a record label, but as far as I can tell it is very minor and none of his reviews are for its releases. Besides Eyre, the most regular reviewer is Mukwae Wabei Siyolwe, who doesn't seem to have written for other notable music publications.
I think it would be valuable to include Afropop Worldwide in the list of reliable sources at WP:RSMUSIC, but specifying that only Eyre's reviews are to be used. I'll wait for input from other editors here before making any change. GanzKnusper (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Eyre is a great writer and he may be a subject matter expert. I know I've cited his book with Barlow as well as his other ones, and I think he contributes to NPR. The actual site could give a little more info on their editorial policies, etc., though. Caro7200 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Right, in fact Afropop Worldwide seems to be affiliated with NPR: https://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444269/pri-afropop-worldwide GanzKnusper (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- To conclude: I won't add Afropop Worldwide to the reliable sources list, because they don't have a clear editorial policy. But Banning Eyre's reviews and coverage are OK to use, because of his subject matter expertise, à la David Katz. GanzKnusper (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Seemingly unreliable review
At In_Sexyy_We_Trust#Critical_reception, the only review is from a source not listed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. If others agree that this is unreliable and should not be included, please delete it. If anyone wants to make the case that it should be added to our list of reliable sources, please chime in. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ii agree, this doesn't look like a strong source and the quote given from the source isn't really illuminating in any case. Popcornfud (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Grammys list on List of awards and nominations received by Red Hot Chili Peppers is wrong
According to the official Grammys page, the list on this Wikipedia page is very wrong. I'd fix it myself but tangling with tables is one of my least favorite Wikipedia tasks. Would anyone care to take a look? Popcornfud (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Looks like a lot of these were added last year by the editor JasonH1978. Richard3120 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)- Scratch that, it looks like it was an IP last month - my apologies to Jason for the false accusation. So a simple revert to the version before the IP's edits should do it. Richard3120 (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks to @Zmbro for reverting that. But I don't think it's the whole story. The page now says they won 6 Grammys, but they've only won 3. Popcornfud (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've done some further work and it's slightly less wrong than it was but still wrong. The table is giving me a headache and I'm out of time. If anyone else wants to fix this that would make my day. Popcornfud (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Popcornfud: I *think* it's all fixed now... apart from the edit mentioned above, this edit seems to have been the main culprit. However, a lot of these still need sourcing to verify them... and the number of wins/nominations in the infobox and in the lead need updating. Richard3120 (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Richard3120 Thanks! But the Grammys table still isn't right. They only won three awards but the table says they won five. Like I said, I've tried to fix this but the table formatting makes my eyes spin. Popcornfud (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Popcornfud and Richard3120:
Done It is now actually accurate without whatever weird noise someone introduced and has proper semantics per MOS:DTAB and MOS:TABLECAPTION. Thanks for helping. Teamwork makes the dream work. <3 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! What a relief. Popcornfud (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doh, sorry Popcornfud, the Grammy Awards were the ones I DIDN'T check because I stupidly assumed that they were the ones that you had already managed to fix – thank you Koavf. I've updated the infobox, but I'm not sure if the total awards/nominations here should only total the ones mentioned in the infobox, or all of them. And it's still not completely fixed, because although Carlobunnie attempted to move everything into a single table, she noted that she was leaving out the Hungarian Music Awards because of possible duplication, but I think she has accidentally moved out some of the MTV Europe Awards and and Žebřík Music Awards as well in the process. Richard3120 (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Richard3120 the ZMAs were left out because I fell asleep and was unable to complete the table before that (my last edit was made after 4am so I was too tired). I didn't remove any of the MTV EMAs entries. The big table contains exactly what was listed in the original standalone table. Going to finish the merge now. The only thing that'll still be separate is the HMAs table, because I genuinely don't know what to do about it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doh, sorry Popcornfud, the Grammy Awards were the ones I DIDN'T check because I stupidly assumed that they were the ones that you had already managed to fix – thank you Koavf. I've updated the infobox, but I'm not sure if the total awards/nominations here should only total the ones mentioned in the infobox, or all of them. And it's still not completely fixed, because although Carlobunnie attempted to move everything into a single table, she noted that she was leaving out the Hungarian Music Awards because of possible duplication, but I think she has accidentally moved out some of the MTV Europe Awards and and Žebřík Music Awards as well in the process. Richard3120 (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! What a relief. Popcornfud (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Popcornfud and Richard3120:
- @Richard3120 Thanks! But the Grammys table still isn't right. They only won three awards but the table says they won five. Like I said, I've tried to fix this but the table formatting makes my eyes spin. Popcornfud (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Popcornfud: I *think* it's all fixed now... apart from the edit mentioned above, this edit seems to have been the main culprit. However, a lot of these still need sourcing to verify them... and the number of wins/nominations in the infobox and in the lead need updating. Richard3120 (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Compilation vs. greatest hits
When setting the "type" parameter in the infobox of an album article, what's the difference between a compilation album and a greatest hits album? I think some albums are pretty clearly greatest hits albums -- for example, Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975) -- while others are obviously compilations -- for example, An Anthology. But for other albums, the distinction is less clear. For example, in this recent edit, QuasyBoy changed the type for The Best of the Grateful Dead Live from compilation to greatest hits. But for that album, I would more or less seriously say, what hits? Most of those songs didn't chart -- either the live versions compiled on the album, or the original studio versions of the songs. So to me it's more of a compilation. What do other editors think? — Mudwater (Talk) 01:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- As you said, it's easier to say which compilation albums are not greatest hits albums, e.g.:
- compilations of multiple artists
- albums compiled according to a clearly different criteria, e.g. Past Masters collects all non-album releases, Another Self Portrait is demos etc. from the Self Portrait and New Morning sessions, I Thank God is songs by Sam Cooke of a particular genre, Everything So Far is in the name.
- So maybe "greatest hits" albums are just the subset of "compilation albums" that have no other reason for existing. It seems to me that the name "greatest hits" is a marketing trick (I'm sure we've all seen albums claiming to be greatest hits that have ridiculous omissions). If the Grateful Dead want to claim that this is the best of their live output, I won't argue. GanzKnusper (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that's about it. Compilation albums are a grouping of songs together usually recorded for other releases first (other albums, EPs, stand-alone singles, b-sides, etc) while greatest hits albums are usually compilation albums that focus more of a group's most popular songs. (Though not exclusively, as they often have new/rare songs mixed in, and bands with a smaller collection of hits often have them "padded" with songs that weren't all that big.)
- Like usual on Wikipedia, when in doubt, just go by whatever third party reliable sources label an album as. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
"Debut"
I'd like clarification on the usage of this term. An artist/group releases an EP (on a label, not a demo), and nothing notable prior to that; it's their recording debut. Later, they release a studio album; this is surely no longer their debut album, but their first album, since they already had a debut release prior. Am I getting my usage mixed up? If they made their debut with an EP, surely a subsequent album cannot also be a debut. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's still considered their debut album! You can have a debut EP, a debut mixtape, a debut album, and major-label debut all as different releases. Eugenia ioessa (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with that. Although if, for example, the debut EP came after three studio albums, I'd probably refer to it as their "first EP" instead, to avoid confusion. Richard3120 (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree as well. And anecdotally, it seems to be how we generally handle it these days. Sergecross73 msg me 21:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with that. Although if, for example, the debut EP came after three studio albums, I'd probably refer to it as their "first EP" instead, to avoid confusion. Richard3120 (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Whitney Houston Live: Her Greatest Performances#Requested move 23 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Stylization concern
Just made a bold edit to The Story of I regarding its use of a stylized title, and I feel confident in that move. However, I'm less sure about the same use of the symbol, a non-free image, in the article's track listing. Should the symbol be replaced there as well, and the image file deleted as WP:F5? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The edit has been undone by Martin IIIa, so consider the discussion expanded to include that as well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- QuietHere As far as the lead goes, I don't know of any precedent of starting off an article with an image like that. Not to mention the symbol by itself, prior to explanation, would be perplexing to most readers. Definitely don't prefer Martin's version in that respect. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Reliability
Is TheStreet a reliable source for music related matters, such as album sales? Thanks
Koppite1 (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't say its come up in the past. They're not a sales-tracking company, so I wouldn't think they'd have access to any sales that would haven't come from any of the usual places we get sales figures from. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Canadian Music Recording Certifications before 1975
According to the Music Canada website...
Music Canada’s Gold/Platinum Certification Program was launched in 1975 to celebrate milestone sales of music in Canada.
Only thing is, that is total bs.
Just a very small selection.[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] etc. etc.
- Conclusion... At least as early as 1968'(and possible years earlier too) a Single that sold 100,000 copies in Canada was Gold. And Album that sold 50,000 copies in Canada was Gold. From at least as early as 1973(and possibly earlier) and Album that sold 100,000 copies in Canada was Platinum. Music Canada does not recognise this at all. But then Music Canada doesn't even recognise Music Canada's own 1975/1976 certifications! [ http://www.americanradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Business/Music/Archive-Cash-Box-IDX/70s/1976/Cash-Box-1976-10-09-OCR-Page-0015.pdf#search=%22iron%20butterfly%20j%20geils%20band%20platinum%22]
Wiki should include ALL these **1968**(possible earlier) through 1975 Canadian Certifications. Sadly, there is no central database. It would require going issue-by-issue through old copies of eg. Billboard, Cash Box etc. But it is preposterous to not recognise that eg. Jimi Hendrix, Cat Stevens etc. releases never received Canadian Gold Certifications...when they did! 197.87.135.139 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have no problem explaining this as long as we've got the reliable sources and proper context in the prose written for it. It could be a pretty tall order to find someone to manually dig through magazines for the actual certifications though. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- It isn't BS that Music Canada's forerunner, the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), launched the official certification program in 1975. The question is, who was giving out these gold discs before then? I'm not against adding these certifications if we can establish that they were given by an official source. Richard3120 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)