Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Albums and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WikiProject Albums was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 11 July 2011.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Metal.de

My addition of Metal.de to the list of reliable sources was reverted, and it was suggested that I discuss it here first. Metal.de is a long-standing (since 1996) German online metal music magazine. Per the imprint information, it's published by Versus Media, and has a professional staff under an editor-in-chief who is legally responsible for the content. The property was managed by a company that managed, among other properties, properties such as the German versions of Metal Hammer, Rolling Stone, and Michelin. There has been a re-brand or transfer since then, but the new company still manages many of the old properties, including Michelin. Thus, this resource seems to be a digital equivalent to traditional print media. I tried to confirm the claim on the wiki article of 400,000 regular pageviews, but that link is dead. I don't doubt the popularity, and the magazine also has its own music festivals, so it's certainly a significant presence in Germany. Is there any reason to presume that this source is unreliable?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I was able to confirm the link regarding the page views through Internet Archive. As of 2017, it was indeed getting over 400,000 views.[reply]

Adding to 3family6's post – it's been used as a source in the following books:

Searching "metal.de" on Google Books gave me a lot of junk results, so this is the best I could gather from there. MusicforthePeople (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are more convincing than others. The interview citations I don't think do much for establishing reliability, as interviews are essentially primary source statements from those interviewed. The exception would be if the editorial content from the reviewer or publisher is what is being cited. Which doesn't seem to be the case. For reference, those books are the first 10. The remaining 6 are perhaps more convincing, because they cite news or review articles, which are statements from the publication themselves. Of those, Gender, Macht und Recht lists but also a bunch of primary source citations to YouTube, so I don't think that's a clear case. Analyzing Black Metal cites Metal Archives as well as Metal.de, and Metal Archives is user-generated and thus not reliable for Wikipedia. Metal.de isn't user-generated, so that's a notch for reliability, but since that book also cites user-generated content (which is perfectly fine for a book to do, Wikipedia actually has really high standards - which is good!), it's still a bit of a question if it's actually helping determine a reputation for fact checking and accuracy for Metal.de. No fear of the dark I couldn't verify, so I'll AGF on that one.

Die besten Web-Seiten für Senioren 2017 is better. It's literally a book of best websites. The other two websites listed are Rock Hard, which is also a print source and is currently on the MUSICRS list per consensus, and Powermetal.de, which, though not listed as an RS, in my experience of the source and of usage by others here on Wikipedia is a reliable source per how reliable sources are defined. Thus, I think this particular book is helpful for determining if Metal.de is RS.

The Virgin Internet Music Guide I can only see a snippet of, but it's a specific entry discussing the website. I'll AGF that it speaks positively of the source. And Dancers to a Discordant System cites a news article from Metal.de for statements of fact, so that's a clear use by a reliable source for determining reliability.

--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JeffSpaceman, you recommended bringing this to the talk page. Was that simply procedural to ensure that my addition reflects consensus, or do you have concerns about the reliability of Metal.de?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such thing should not have been unilaterally declared reliable by you anyways. It's a very bold change that was rejected. It should deserve a RS/N discussion. Graywalls (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of discussion doesn't mean the considering it reliable is solely constrained to me (it's not - example). However, my addition to the list was unilateral. I agree with JeffSpaceman's reverting edit and request to discuss it, because that indeed was a bold edit to make.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apparently Geschichte brought this up for discussion 3 years ago. And there wasn't real discussion or result, then. Sergecross73, do have any thoughts regarding this, given the above from myself and MusicforthePeople?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comment left by User:Graywalls basically sums up my thoughts. Any source added to a list of reliable or unreliable sources should have at least minor discussion to support its classification as a source. There are sources on the WP:RSMUSIC and WP:NOTRSMUSIC lists that only have a single discussion here or at RSN listed, because there was enough consensus established in those single discussions to support what they would be classified as. I'm not particularly familiar with Metal.de, but I'd recommend that when you add sources, you have discussions about their viability to support what list they end up on. Just my advice. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. The reason I ask is because your edit was interpreted in a deletion discussion as challenging the reliability of this source. Whereas I had understood it as you and Graywalls explained above.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable - largely to the strength of 3family6's argument, thought the USEBYOTHERS, while I tend to put less weight on, doesn't hurt the situation either. It's a long running professional publication. I didn't so much object to its 2021 addition as much as I just wished for that editor to give a rationale for its inclusion, which they never did, and then it was simply dropped. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73, JeffSpaceman, Geschichte, Graywalls, do we have consensus that the source is reliable?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and MusicforthePeople.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against it being added to WP:RSMUSIC, based on your and Serge's comments above. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm all for it being added as well. MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment Needs better context. I think you're overly relying on WP:USEBYOTHERS based argument. WP:NYPOST is a good example of something which gets mentioned often in other outlets that is specifically classified as not reliable in RSP. Graywalls (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What additional context do you need? I outlined the editorial information we have. I'm confused because I didn't refer to use by others at all. That was MusicforthePeople. Do you mean in how the source is used? Generally, the RSMUSIC list is a list of sources deemed generally reliable for what the sources are typically used for: Establishing notability, critical opinion of works (RSMUSIC has since expanded beyond a list of reliable and unreliable publications for critical reviews), but that was its origins), factual statements about artists and personnel, dates of recordings/releases/concerts, and genre labels. If you're challenging the idea of a list of generally reliable sources, that's fair, I've seen other editors disagreeing with that concept. In which case, I'd recommend an RfC at RS/N about the existence of RSMUSIC and how you propose it be re-tooled. As is, I've recently been trying to add qualifiers or explanatory notes to sources that I think need them.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific concern? Or are there disputes or concerns elsewhere or something? It feels like you're asking for a better counterpoint, but I'm not seeing the concerns you want addressed in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's more to it than "it's reliable" or "it's not reliable". Some things are fine for confirming the very basics, but undue for using it to fluff up the article with what the bands would presumably want presented. Graywalls (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that reliability is far more complex than just reliable/unreliable. But what are you referring to with "undue for using it to fluff up the article with what the bands would presumably want presented"? What examples from this source are you thinking of? Have you found instances of this publication writing on behalf of bands, rather than independent reporting?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that, and did not suggest otherwise. I do not understand why that is your response to me asking you what your actual concerns are, or why you still haven't stated what your concerns are. I'm asking you for your evaluation of Metal.de. Sergecross73 msg me 03:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Graywalls isn't going to articulate any actual opposition with any sort of substance, then I think we're ready to list it on WP:RSMUSIC. I'm trying to assume good faith, but their participation thus far is getting awfully close to WP:STONEWALLING... Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you or another participating editor wants to implement the change, I'm not opposed. I'm just being cautious after the (rightful) pushback against my bold edit before.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give Graywalls a day or two to respond first, then probably go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73, excuse me, but people have things happening outside of Wikipedia. I was pinged into this discussion and I shared my comment, and it seems to be that because I commented, I have an obligation to you to reply within xx hours. Please visit ~~WP:TND~~ WP:TIND and I'm asking you to hold off accusing others of stonewalling because the discussion apparently isn't moving along at your expected pace.

@3family6 What I meant is, what is the kind of thing you're trying to support? It could be reliable to support that such and such interview was held, but not really establish notability. I say "could be" since I do not read/write German. Graywalls (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, it was a complaint about the substance of your comments more than your response time. Your initial comment was very vague and your follow up seemed to lecture on points not being made - neither were particularly unhelpful. Sergecross73 msg me 05:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls The source would be used for establishing notability, describing album/artist genre and style, give critical opinion, and verify basic facts.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls what does The Needle Drop have to do with this? This source isn't self-published. Please reread my rationale above at the beginning of the discussion. Based on that, what are your concrete concerns about this specific source and how it will be used, other than it being in a foreign language?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I missed a letter. That was a typo. WP:TIND is what I meant. Graywalls (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls ah, that makes a lot more sense.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for The Number of the Beast (album)

The Number of the Beast (album) 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. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is a review of an album sufficient for entry of a band under a genre list?

If a band is unambiguously and explicitly described as playing a certain style of music on an album, is that generally enough for them to be included on a list of artists performing that style of music? This is a perennial issue, and has come up today at the List of melodic death metal bands and two days ago at the List of death metal bands, !–K (which actually specifies that the band only need have performed death metal for part of their career). Should this be default presumed, with exceptions on a case-by-case basis?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the review calls the band a genre, yes.

If the review calls the album a genre, then no. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73 ok, thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73 what if the band's press releases describe them as that style, but the accessible independent coverage only describes a particular album as that (without disputing the band labeling or implying a departure from the usual?)--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to use any WP:PRIMARY sources like press releases in relation to music genre, as I feel they're often promotional and self-serving. For example, it was very popular for nu metal or emo bands to claim they were "never really actually that genre" after the genre fell out of mainstream popularity, as a bid for continued relevance and acceptance. Other band's try to make up genre to sensationalize their output. ("Cinematic rock" and "American Gothic" come to mind.) It makes for interesting talking points in "Musical style and influences" sections when presented in the context of it being the band's own words, but I don't use it for actual genre designations in infoboxes or other areas of labeling. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73 Right. I've long avoided primary source statements for genre statements, outside of the artist discussing their style as you elaborate above. What I'm referring to is a case where an independent source matches with what a band or record label describes their style as, but the independent source only does so in referring to the sound on an album. It's thus a case where the sound of the band isn't really in dispute between the band or independent journalism, but the guidance of not listing a band unless the band and not an album is referred to as the style would exclude that band as an entry on the list.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wouldn't. I'd use the third party source to source the genre for the album, but not use either for the band article. But that's just me, maybe that's me being too strict. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73 I personally would, in such cases, because there doesn't seem to be a dispute. However, I do think that such an issue is more of access to the quality sources or else a lack of notability. In the particular case in question, neither myself nor the other editor disputed the label of the band, but what counts as RS for listing the band as melo-death.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FMSky, pinging you as a courtesy--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reissues

Hello, there's an open discussion here about special editions (remixes and deluxe versions). Please do check it out and leave your suggestions. dxneo (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions please: In Rainbows Disk 2

The talk of when it's appropriate for a reissue to get its own page above made me think about In Rainbows Disk 2 — not a reissue, but a bonus disc included in the special edition of the 2007 Radiohead album In Rainbows.

Over recent months I found more and more coverage in RSs of the bonus disc and adding it to the main In Rainbows article. It's now grown to the point where all that coverage is pretty juicy, so I've experimented with how it might look split into its own article in my sandbox.

However, the idea of giving a bonus disc its own article sets off all my Wikipedia alarms, so I'd like to hear if other people think this is a good idea or not. Popcornfud (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much respect for the effort, but personally I would say no to the split. I think it's important to keep in mind (and I'm not sure everyone always does) that the primary concern that leads to a split is article size. In this case, while you're right that there's quite a bit there, it is still relatively compact and unobtrusive. Unless you have a bunch more to add where it would balloon to an unseemly degree, I don't see the necessity. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm not convinced of it myself yet either. Thanks for the input. Popcornfud (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at RSN

There is currently a discussion being held at WP:RSN about whether or not theyeargrungebroke.com ([1]) qualifies as a reliable source. Feel free to comment any thoughts about this source here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holler Country

What's the reliability of Holler Country, also known as Holler? It's currently being used in Chapel Hart, which I am currently reviewing a GA nomination for, but I don't recognize this source nor can I find much information on it. Here's what's being used. Lazman321 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not extremely familiar with RS discussions but the source seems generally reliable. Their writers seems qualified and their editorial policy seems to suggest strong standards and a good review process. They appear to be quite young though and I can't find much other sources talking about them. Justi yaya 14:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also started a discussion about this source and some others below. I note in that discussion that they appear to let freelance journalists contribute to their site. If you click the top right corner, you find this message: "If you would like to advertise on our site, be a partner or sponsor, contribute as a journalist, work for us or have any other question, give us a holler!" wizzito | say hello! 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "freelance journalists" and "anyone" though. Lots of RS's use the help of qualified, credentialed freelance writers. However, if they simply let anyone submit stories, then its a WP:USERG problem. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation. I note that other sources that allow people to contribute are considered unreliable, like Sportskeeda and We Got This Covered. I guess those fall into the category of "any old person can contribute." wizzito | say hello! 18:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It gets even more complicated with sources like Sputnikmusic, Ultimate Guitar, and Metal Storm, where there are both staff and users, so you have to specifically check for the authorship of the article/post.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zara Larsson - VENUS (Vinyl Cover).jpeg listed at FFD

Link: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 January 2#File:Zara Larsson - VENUS (Vinyl Cover).jpeg. George Ho (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 February 1#File:Zara Larsson - VENUS (Vinyl Cover).jpeg. George Ho (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metal-Temple.com

I've encountered metal-temple.com both in web searches and on used on Wikipedia since around the time I started editing almost 15 years ago. I've considered its reliability over those years but have always landed on unreliable. However, I can't say why more than just vibes. They do have an editorial and writing staff. However, I don't know the quality or credentials of the writers. I've tried to find WP:USEBYOTHERS, but that's been difficult. They've also been around since 2000, so potentially those usages could have gone down the memory hole or are buried in internet archive. I guess they're certainly well-established. And I can't pinpoint anything questionable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Folk-Metal.nl

Folk-metal.nl is another source I want to confirm reliability or unreliability for. It being Dutch, use by others is tricky to determine. The name also throws off my search engine as well. They do list their staff, including the editor. I will note that I cite them in articles I'm working on in my sandbox, and I used them for the List of melodic death metal bands recently. I want to confirm that this actually is a reliable source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Rules

Metal Rules is long established (since 1995) - and called one of the "longest-running" by Blabbermouth.net here - and back in 2007 was getting well over 1 million site views a month (verified by this source). There's lots of use by others, including by The New York Times [2] and Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles [3]. I also found some citations in books for content other than interviews: [4], [5], [6], [7]. The site has an editor and regular staff. I personally say that this one is a slam-dunk reliable as one of the best online-only sources you're going to get for the subject area. But I want to get some consensus to confirm my assessment.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to make MOS:ALBUM a formal guideline

MOS:ALBUM is still an essay. I've proposed that it be made a formal MOS guideline. The discussion is here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I remember when WP:VG when through this process years back, we had to make tweaks and changes, we may need more eyes on this depending on how this goes. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Upgrade_MOS:ALBUM_to_an_official_guideline.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation title links in Beatles articles

@Tkbrett recently reverted over ten edits like this that had changed the "title link" for a book citation from an external URL (the Internet Archive full text) to an internal wikilink (a Wikipedia article on the book itself). I understand this to be standard practice, as Template:Cite book says to remove the URL when there is a title link.

Tkbrett says this change needs wider discussion because the Beatles articles typically use URLs in their citations and not title links. My experience is that articles can have both and I've never seen this be a point of contention before. Bringing it here since most of the affected Beatles articles are albums: Apart from any local article consensus on citation style, should title link edits like my example above be reverted or let stand? czar 14:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, your edits removed the link to the book at the Internet Archive in favour of linking the Wikipedia entry. The former assists with verifying cited material. Not only that, this citation format has been in place for years at an FA like Sgt. Pepper. Why change that? Tkbrett (✉) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage others to weigh in. Here's the Sgt. Pepper example. Note that the Internet Archive URL (which is not a readable full text) is also linked from the book's Wikipedia article's External links section. czar 14:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is tangential to the discussion, but it is a helpful trick: the Internet Archive made many books only available to patrons with disabilities, but if you use the search function to look for keywords, you can in effect still read the entire text. Tkbrett (✉) 15:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly a great tip, but I would note that this is also a possible copyright violation and IA may eventually be sued over this if they don't close this loophole. Much of what IA has scanned/uploaded in their earlier years (or added via partner institutions) is not public domain material but just hasn't been noticed by the rights holders yet. I would strongly caution against linking to IA-hosted material that is only available to people with print disabilities, as this content is the most likely to be copyrighted and expressly restricted from non-disability-access-related use (i.e., IA never had permission in the first place to scan/upload, but they're avoiding lawsuits by restricting access to people with print disabilities who would otherwise be unable to read a standard copy of the material, making the scan fair use). I have to think a rights holder is eventually going to notice that the content of the material is available to the public via the keyword search loophole and will one day take action, and at that point the links to those restricted IA copies may just be useless for the general public. --19h00s (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so Template:Cite book also says to remove the title link if there is a URL link; it doesn't favor one or the other. I'm not sure that there is a standard practice. I'd defer to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for Beatles articles in this case.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Bat Out of Hell II: Back into Hell

Bat Out of Hell II: Back into Hell 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. Z1720 (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Various country music sources (Countrytown, Country Now, Holler Country Music)

This is for Draft:Waylon Wyatt, which is currently mostly primary sources right now. I plan to rewrite the draft based on secondary sources, and there are some good ones like Rolling Stone and Billboard, but I am unsure of the validity of these three sites and cannot find any discussion on them:

Countrytown: https://countrytown.com/features/waylon-wyatt-bayker-blakenship-til-the-sun-goes-down-jailbreak-interview/KOKWOj08Pz4/22-10-24
Country Now: https://countrynow.com/exclusive-qa-17-year-old-waylon-wyatt-on-balancing-school-and-a-blossoming-music-career/
Holler Country Music: https://holler.country/news/breaking/waylon-wyatt-releases-long-awaited-single-o-d/

Thanks for any help y'all can provide. wizzito | say hello! 17:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I can find so far:

Countrytown is owned by SGC Media, which also owns the following music news sites: The Music, Purple Sneakers, and Kill Your Stereo. The Music has a WP article and seems to be long-running (since 1990), which seems like a good indicator of reliability to me (not sure what anyone else thinks). Purple Sneakers is listed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 46#New Publications (a discussion from 2013) as a "webzine" with "editorial oversight."
Country Now's about page lists the actual writers of the site, who have college degrees and have written for other publications, mostly in the country music space. Seems to be new, as they claim to have launched in 2019.
Holler Country Music seems to let freelancers contribute to their site. If you click the top right corner, you find this message: "If you would like to advertise on our site, be a partner or sponsor, contribute as a journalist, work for us or have any other question, give us a holler!" They do have an editorial policy. Their editor-in-chief has won an award from the Country Music Association (not sure how valid that really is). wizzito | say hello! 17:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those look pretty solid, for the reasons you state. For the third one, yes, getting an award from the CMA for media certainly is valid, and a really good credential for an editor-in-chief to have.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flood Magazine

Is Flood Magazine reliable? They seem to have a lot of coverage when I write an album article. On their about page, it shows they have an editorial team, and their founder has a long history in the music industry. They also are available in print, and have cover stories on lots of notable people. Thoughts? Locust member (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They seem quite reliable to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a publication has a print format, is established, and isn't a one person zine but with a staff, I'd generally presume reliability. Obviously, if it has a negative reputation (*cough cough* Daily Mail), don't use it, but typically I'd say that traditional print media is desired.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Arts coverage talk - seeking process advice

Hi y'all! This message is primarily meant for the longer-term participants in WP Albums, as I'm asking about some older processes and structures related to the WikiProject.

I edit primarily on visual arts-related articles. I have long admired the community guidelines and WikiProject info pages that the Albums WP has produced and maintained over the years. After running into quite a few conundrums over the years in my own edits - facing questions related to the specifics of editing visual arts articles and using visual arts sources - I thought I'd start a conversation in the WP Visual Arts about creating some broader guidelines or community norms for sources and articles on the topic, similar to the WP Albums sources page. That conversation is ongoing over there (hoping to drum up some more involvement, so if anyone here also edits on visual arts, please chime in there!).

What I wanted to ask this WP about is the process that you created/followed for developing, gathering feedback on, executing, and ultimately maintaining the Sources page. I wasn't able to find much about the proper process for creating something like that, and I didn't want to charge ahead full steam without getting some advice from editors who have created something similar in the past. If you have anywhere to point me, feel free to send me elsewhere, but if anyone has any specific insights or advice that would be rad! Thanks all. 19h00s (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience over the past almost 15 years, it's partly about replicating the process at the general noticeboard for reliability, as well as going from the essay on guidelines for album articles (which currently is being updated and discussed for becoming an official Manual of Style. Typically, the process I've seen, and participated in, is using some benchmarks to try and ascertain a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, an editorial process, and the publisher being independent of the writers at minimum or even a separate company from the source. Also, whether a source is established and has some reputation among sources already deemed reliable (thus giving opinions and other journalism in the source more weight in using it for supporting notability. And there is an element of personal judgment as to the quality of the source. The above discussion regarding Metal.de could be helpful. I selected a few discussions you can use for reference for what the process looks like: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_32#Review_publications:_Rock_Sound,_Spin,_Metal_Hammer,_Vibe,_Mojo,_Kerrang!_and_Q, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_43#Consequence_of_Sound, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_49#Sea_of_Tranquliity, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_49#What_makes_a_review_relevant_enough_to_be_included? (note that this last one is not about a specific source, but about more generally how to determine the due weight to give a specific source).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really can't express how useful this is, thank you so much!! 19h00s (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Definitely also take a look through the Sources page and follow the links to the requisite discussions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around here for 15ish years as well. (I started in late 2008 and immediately worked in the music content area, though I can't quite recall when became active here specifically.) I know I've try to model our guidelines and resources after the work done at the video game Wikiproject - WP:VG - and their standards at MOS:VG. They're one of the most advanced and active ones in existence, and I'm equally active over there. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is super useful, thank you! I'll take a look at the WP Video Games and the different standards they've built out over the years. 19h00s (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic for personnel credits

Juand.1974 and myself were having a disagreement at ABBA: The Album, where AllMusic is being used as a credits citation in addition to the citation to the liner notes. Juand claimed that AllMusic included credits not listed in the album packaging. I've always thought, per the text about AllMusic as a source ("Biography/staff reviews are reliable, but do not use sidebar, as it may be user-generated or otherwise separately sourced from the prose."), that everything aside from the staff-written bios, reviews, and ratings was either UG or to be of unclear/unstated/secondhand origin. The WP Personnel album style guidance notes that "many AllMusic listings are incomplete or contain typos, so use this source with others when verifying musicians", indicating that AM is not enough for a credit that does not appear in the liner notes. Finally, here's the Xperi page that Juand linked to: "Please do not contact AllMusic about the status of data corrections; we don't control which data is corrected or how long it takes to apply corrections, and we can't move up your correction in priority or within a specific time frame. Xperi appreciates the time you take to send this information to them, but due to the immense volume of correspondence they receive, they're unable to directly respond to most of your submissions." Granted, this may mean that they are receiving a lot of "Hey, my father played bass on track two, I swear"-type emails, or they may be admitting that they can't explain how Xperi or Tivo or Rovi or the original AM or whomever are obtaining information about credits not found in liner notes ... and they, at this point, have cataloged 3 million + albums. Curious what others think about the AM information that doesn't contain a byline ... are we assuming that a staff is doing the work to ensure accuracy for stuff not listed in packaging for, even conservatively, tens of thousands of albums? Caro7200 (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The real question here is whether Xperi/TiVo is reliable for album metadata. Per their website, "TiVo Music Metadata is built on the libraries of AMG, Muze, Veveo, and Rovi." Seems like they're reliable per Wikipedia:USEBYOTHERS given that they're selling this product to large corporations that rely on the end product being accurate. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a slide deck about the product: [8]. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that's the real question. Why use a source that many editors have found to be problematic for an album that reliable books, magazines, and newspapers have covered for 47 years? But page 12 of the deck assures us that credits are "verified through curation". Worries gone! Caro7200 (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said it's the real question because this is apparently where AllMusic gets its album metadata from. That said, I think using the album liner notes as the source for credits is the general practice for album/song articles and I don't see why that shouldn't continue. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, there is a consensus that only reviews/bios written by AllMusic's staff are reliable. If they disagree, they are free to open another discussion about it over at WP:RSN. While it says that "TiVo adds products and other materials to their databases at their discretion" and uses materials provided by labels, there are "submit corrections" links at the bottom of every album/artist page and it's unclear whether they actually double check any of user-submitted corrections or accept them as is.

Regardless, in this particular case, the liner notes alone are fine. Booklet in the 2001 reissue of the album (better scan of the relevant page) already lists who played which guitar and who did remastering (which is the reason why Juand.1974 insisted on using AllMusic). If there is something missing, it's probably not important enough, considering it was omitted by the label. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 17:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AstonishingTunesAdmirer: I linked above to TiVo's website, whcih says that their metadata comes directly from companies that source their data from music publishers, so it's not UGC, notwithstanding what our prior consensuses and AllMusic's site say. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be user-generated, but it can still be user-provided content with a lack of oversight and verification. See discussions regarding WP:ROTTENTOMATOES. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 23:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because RT is UGC. But AllMusic itself states that it gets its data from TiVo, which gets its data directly from the album publishers, all of which have a vested interest in maintaining accurate data, unless you believe album publishers are providing fake data. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Fake" is not the same as incorrect. I don't want to nor do I have to assume what kind of interest these companies have. All I see is that there is the "submit corrections" button and I don't see any explanation on what happens once you send these corrections. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 23:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the AllMusic citation supporting that can't be confirmed with the liner notes? I will sometimes use AllMusic credits for an artist to support if they did engineering/production work and work of that sort, in addition to other sources, if I don't have or can't find the liner notes for the work in question, but it's certainly not preferrable. But, for the situation you're talking about here, what content is AllMusic supporting, if it's not duplicating the liner notes?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My general understanding has been that the prose of the bios and reviews are usable, but virtually anything else isn't the best, with the sidebars being 100% not usable. If its not in the paragraphs, I wouldn't use it, especially if its contentious or contradicted by something else. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used AllMusic for personnel credits when writing Duran Duran (1981 album), Rio (Duran Duran album) and Seven and the Ragged Tiger because the liner notes for those albums only listed the musicians' names and no instruments. I typically would only do that if I had no other option and unfortunately I had no other option with DD. I try to find book sources and the like but for DD, there isn't a book or website (that I know of) that breaks down personnel credits song-by-song or album-by-album. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment at Template talk:Infobox song#RfC: Customizing Infobox Background Colors Based on Album or Single Cover Colors

There is a RfC discussion at Template talk:Infobox song § RfC: Customizing Infobox Background Colors Based on Album or Single Cover Colors. I highly recommend to join on this discussion to members of this WikiProject. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Harum Scarum (film)#Requested move 26 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Harum Scarum (film)#Requested move 26 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ROY is WAR Talk! 16:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources for Hong Kong charts?

Are there any only sources of album charts for Hong Kong? One Mission (Sherman Chung album) was recently put up for PROD. I frankly believe that's probably correct, but if the album charted it might be worth adding to the article and retaining it; but I can't find any such sources. TJRC (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Album release date

Does anyone know of any reliable places or ways to find the release date of older albums from the 80s?

I'm trying to find the date for the release of Christine McVie (1984), but have not found definitive answers. A biography of Christine McVie by Lesley-Ann Jones gives the date as 27 January 1984.^[1] However, Jones does not support this date with a source in the book and this date would mean that the album was released on a Friday. To my understanding, records used to be released on Tuesdays. A Billboard issue from the next day (Saturday, January 28) shows that the album was marked as a new entry on the Rock Albums & Top Tracks chart, meaning it had already released and had time to gain airplay to be put in the chart.^[2] This is another reason why it's unlikely it was released the on the 27th.

Does any have any ideas on where to look or any suggestions? Is the January 27 date correct or sufficient? Should we leave the date as January 1984 (as it is now)? I appreciate any help you could give me. Juand.1974 (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this Lesley-Ann Jones book is from a reputable publisher, but if it is, that should suffice as a source. You could also try looking for reviews from other music publications or earlier Billboard issues that might have announced the release date. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This book also says January 27, 1984 (you might need a free Internet Archive account to see it). You can try searching more books over at Open Library. Another place worth checking is Newspapers.com (once you get access to it through WP:TWL), but I couldn't find anything there. But in general, no, there is no single place to verify an album release date. Older albums are notoriously bad in that regard, especially if they were less popular. It gets even worse when someone puts a wrong date in a Wikipedia article and then lazy journalists publish it in reliable sources. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 03:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you both so much! I'll be sure to check that out. And yeah release dates seem to be a drag. It's great that Wikipedia is the first source that most people go to find that information but it really does become a problem when its either wrongly sourced or not sourced at all. I guess it becomes a great responsibility to make sure the info is correct. Anyway, thank you again :) Juand.1974 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Rock Albums & Top Tracks" (PDF). Billboard. 28 January 1984. p. 24. Retrieved 29 November 2024 – via World Radio History.
^ Jones, Lesley-Ann (2024). "Retreat". Songbird: An Intimate Biography of Christine McVie. London: John Blake Publishing. Paragraphs 29–44. ISBN 9781789467727.

Rolling Stone list

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/best-albums-21st-century-1235177256/

--Another Believer _(Talk) 14:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BestEverAlbums.com

Was looking through an old AfD and found a case of an editor citing this website's rankings for an album as a reason why it should be considered non-notable. At the time, I remember immediately thinking that I had never heard of the website before, that I had certainly never seen it referenced by other editors, and that it was probably unreliable per USERG or something similar. Seeing as it is apparently only used on 51 articles, I don't know if it's a huge deal or anything, but it never hurts to ask anyway. Per the site's "How it works" page, it sounds like USERG ("Registered members can create their own overall, decade, year or custom charts ... and assign ratings."), but with no familiarity with the site I recognize I could be missing something. Is anyone here more familiar with it, and can you speak to its reliability or lackthereof? And if it is unreliable, should it be purged from those 51 articles and listed at NOTRSMUSIC? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[:4-1] "Rock Albums & Top Tracks" (PDF). Billboard. 28 January 1984. p. 24. Retrieved 29 November 2024 – via World Radio History.

[:22-2] Jones, Lesley-Ann (2024). "Retreat". Songbird: An Intimate Biography of Christine McVie. London: John Blake Publishing. Paragraphs 29–44. ISBN 9781789467727.

[1]

[2]