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

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

Album categories by genre

An editor is bulk-adding these – [1] – but isn't there a guideline for categories that stipulate they go through the artists' article instead, or something? It's been a very long time since I saw it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always figured that if the album had a sourced mention of being a certain genre, that such a category was warranted, and if it didn't, it should be removed. I'm not aware of any actual guidance though, I've usually just operated off of a combination of WP:V and WP:DEFINING. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you might be thinking of is that the categories go on the artist's albums category (Category:Overkill (band) albums) in this case), assuming they apply to the artist's discography as a whole and not just a one-off project like a Christmas album. I don't know anything about having to apply to the artist's article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_38#RfC_on_categorizing_all_works_by_an_artist_by_genre, "There is a clear consensus that artists should not be characterized by genre, at least not routinely." We should be categorizing albums and other works by genre, based on reliable sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wearethepit.com

This is a website that now redirects to a YouTube channel [2], which I see is being used on several Wikipedia articles (see here). My problem with the site is that, outside of it appearing to be a self-published source, a lot of what I have found from it appears to be clickbait churnalism. For some examples, see [3], [4], [5]. They were really into using clickbait headlines and over-the-top language to try and sensationalize content (see the third link), and all of these factors lead me to believe it is WP:NOTRSMUSIC. I intend to go and remove it from articles (particularly BLPs), but before I do that I would like to ask if anyone objects to my removals, or might want to argue in favor of this source being usable? JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., compare with Alternative Nation, Cryptic Rock, and Metalheadzone, all of which are on the NOTRSMUSIC list and are all similarly designed to recycle and republish content for the sake of profitability. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you've said. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sergecross73, I want to ask, given that you were present in discussions for all of the sources I've compared this to above, are there any other clickbait rock/metal sites along these lines we should be treating similarly? JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say those are some of the worst offenders. I've been meaning to look into "Distorted Sound Magazine", which is used semi-regularly, and seems a bit iffy upon first glance though. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity about this source (which I had never heard of before you mentioned it here), I checked out their "about" ([6]) and contact information pages ([7], and the fact that there is no information provided about their staff's credentials (outside of "founder," "Heavy Music Editor," "Social Media Editor," et al) is a sign that they very likely fit the criteria of WP:NOTRSMUSIC. Because of this, I think I will also find information from this website and remove it (or at the very least the citations, in instances of superfluous WP:REFSPAM). For now, I think I will focus on seeing if it is used in BLPs, and remove citations to it from those articles. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from three articles, two of which are BLPs ([8], [9], and [10]), and I have found that most uses of this source seem like refspam for content supported by other, more reliable sources (see the first and third diffs linked), or for content that is verified in a different section (in the case of the second one). I see no reason to believe this is any different from Alternative Nation, Metalheadzone, and their spammy ilk, and it leads me to believe neither We Are the Pit nor Distorted Sound fit the criteria of what is expected of WP:RSMUSIC sources. @Sergecross73:, do you mind me adding We Are the Pit (and potentially even Distorted Sound) to the NOTRSMUSIC list? JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone returns to star ratings in reviews

I didn't see anything on this talk page in the last few months worth of archives, but in case it escaped anyone's attention, Rolling Stone has returned to having a 1-5 star ratings in their album reviews, after 2 years of following a different system: [11] Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for heads up! I don't read read their reviews for new music, so I wouldn't even know. And of course they had to screw it up: they don't show all 5 stars (including empty ones), so 4/5 looks like just four stars, 3/5 is just three stars, etc. Not really surprising, though, as their website is pretty bad. They used to have a lot of old reviews, but decided to nuke them, so now you have to search the Web Archive (not the easiest task as they reworked the site several times). AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 19:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source check: Super Deluxe Edition

Is this a reliable source? https://superdeluxeedition.com/ Album news, reviews, etc. Smells reliable to me. Editor is Paul Sinclair, who has written in RSs such as The Guardian, The Times, Sydney Morning Herald, etc. Popcornfud (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always seen it as reliable, partly due to the editor in question. Plus, the website typically only posts articles about one thing (expanded editions of already released albums). On top of that, most of the info he posts is correct, so I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:An Introduction to .....#Requested move 22 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:An Introduction to .....#Requested move 22 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source eval: NTS Radio

British online radio service established in 2011. Cited in Rolling Stone, NME, Pitchfork, and DJ Mag.

Credentials (these were the only ones I could find, I'm not joking):

Niall McKenna: wrote for publications like the Globe and Mail and Dazed magazine (source: [12])
Lorraine Petel: no prior experience (source: [13])
Amir Abdullah: no prior experience (source: [14])
Kasra Vaseghi: no prior experience (source: [15])
Will Dickson: Wrote for publications like the Independent and the Guardian (source: [16])

I would like to know if this source is reliable. Thanks, — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{【=◈︿◈=】} 23:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about NTS, but why would it be a reliable source, or even a useful one? Looks like most of the hosts, or at least the ones listed in the NTS Radio article, are musicians and not journalists. Not to say that musicians aren't SMEs about music, but how often would you need to rely on something one of them says anyway? Perhaps if you provided examples of what you had in mind it would be more clear, but I'm not sure I understand the use case. And you haven't made a convincing case with this list of credentials, nor have you provided any evidence of editorial oversight. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help reference albums in the WikiProject Unreferenced Articles #NOV24 Backlog Drive

Hi WikiProject Albums, I’d like to invite anyone interested to join the WikiProject Unreferenced Articles #NOV24 Backlog Drive. Many album articles are currently tagged as unreferenced, and this drive is a great chance to help improve them. You can see the list of unreferenced album articles here. The drive runs through November, and any help adding realiable sources is welcome—whether you add one source or tackle several articles. Thanks! Turtlecrown (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Additional writers" credits

It's been a while since I've last done any editing for album articles, and upon my return I've noticed a curious trend. In the past few years, editors have been replacing track listings which look like this:

All tracks are written by Alan Smithee, except where noted.

No.	Title	Writer(s)
1.	"The Phony Song"
2.	"I'm Not Even Real"
3.	"Imposter"	Smithee, John Doe
4.	"He Made it All Up"
5.	"Don't Give Me a Made-Up Song Title and Tell Me it's the Beatles"	Smithee, Vic Stench

with ones that look like this:

All tracks are written by Alan Smithee, with additional writers noted.

No.	Title	Writer(s)
1.	"The Phony Song"
2.	"I'm Not Even Real"
3.	"Imposter"	John Doe
4.	"He Made it All Up"
5.	"Don't Give Me a Made-Up Song Title and Tell Me it's a Beatles Hit"	Vic Stench

This seems unnecessarily confusing and misleading at best (I think it's pretty obvious why, but if necessary I can elaborate), so at first I just reverted these "Additional writers" style credits without much ado. But I keep on bumping into them everywhere, which lead me to wonder if just possibly there could have been a consensus to convert track listings to this format en masse. Someone bring me up to date here. Martin IIIa (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware pf any past discussions on this matter, but I definitely agree that the latter style is worse. Mach61 02:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that confusing myself, but maybe my eyes are sharper than others. While I'm okay with the latter, I wouldn't object to ditching this informal practice. mftp dan ^oops 02:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a matter of having sharp eyes; I don't see how someone could know that "additional writers" means "additional writers on a song" (i.e. co-writers with Alan Smithee) and not "additional writers on the album" (i.e. people other than Alan Smithee who wrote songs single-handedly) unless they already knew what the album writing credits are. Martin IIIa (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the latter a few times, but primarily in cases where there are far more than two writers per track. Wasteland (Brent Faiyaz album), for example, includes at least four writers on 3/4s of the tracklist, and none with just the one that's being removed, so the former style would be useless to that page. To my eyes, it's a lot more legible than just seeing the one name repeated ad nauseam for every track. And I think your "additional writers on a song" point assumes less of Wikipedia's readers than they deserve; so long as the writing credits are listed adjacent to the appropriate tracks, why shouldn't we expect people to reasonably assume those credits apply only to those tracks? Frankly, I don't see a problem with it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood what I said. In the latter format, the same phrasing would apply whether John Doe was the co-writer or sole writer of "Imposter", so how is the reader supposed to tell which it is? Also, you don't explain how the tradition style could be "useless". All you do is add the one name to each of the tracks, and there you have it, perfectly useful writing credits. Am I missing something here? All you've accomplished by using the latter style is to make the credits more confusing to readers with no previous knowledge of the subject and place (arguably undue) emphasis on the one name. Martin IIIa (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a disconnect, as I don't see anything particularly confusing in either of the scenarios you've presented. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already said, 'the same phrasing would apply whether John Doe was the co-writer or sole writer of "Imposter", so how is the reader supposed to tell which it is?' If you don't have an answer to that question (and neither you nor QuietHere have provided one), then there you have it. Martin IIIa (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "all" by Smithee and "additional" in the note could only mean "co-writer" for Doe. Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain that it was useless to Wasteland because it wouldn't remove any repetitive credits from that template. I didn't say it was useless generally, and I definitely strongly disagree with that; take Where I'm Meant to Be as an example of a time I've used the former effectively. And I think "except where noted" versus "with additional writers noted" makes a clear difference, as well as whether you see the name repeated in the credits or not. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is more or less my stance. I think there's a time and place for it. Sometimes, it can simplify the look by making it less repetitive. But at the same time, many editors don't really understand that context and try to force the approach into situations that make it look more convoluted instead. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one has yet pointed out any advantage to the latter format in any scenario beyond saving the editor from having to type out the same name a few times. That's a key point to me. Martin IIIa (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an advantage or disadvantage to either. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Chains (album)

I am working on a translation of this article and hope to have an FA before its 30th anniversary a year from today. I have been relying heavily on the Russian-language article's sources (c. 2020) for the work I have done so far, but I'm trying to get a little feedback on the issue of structure.

Could I feasibly pass a Recording section into different subheadings? The Russian article is a treasure trove of fascinating information, but I would want the comfort of knowing that such a massive project would be acceptable, because I've no memory of seeing a recording section on enwiki so big that it needs that many subheadings, but I imagine without them the section would look far too bloated. (Note: the recording section is far from even being finished, and it's already looking real big in English.) mftp dan ^oops 02:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with breaking up a recording section into subsections so long as there's enough sourced content to call for it. I've even seen a few examples of this in FAs, such as The Dark Side of the Moon. Martin IIIa (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. mftp dan ^oops 19:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Indie Vision Music reliable?

Indie Vision Music has long been listed as a source at WP:CM/S, but its reliability is questioned. Please see the RS/N discussion. I'm soliciting input from this project because of past discussions here and I felt editors have some experience at evaluating music journalism sites.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source discussion: Pan African Music

I'd love to be able to use Pan African Music (PAM) as a source for some African artist/album articles. However, their "About us" page says they were founded as part of IDOL, a music distributor/promotor. Clearly there is a conflict-of-interest: for example, Yemi Alade is listed on IDOL's homepage, so all the articles on her at PAM are presumably not unbiased.

Is there any hope of separating the biased from the un-, and using some of PAM's coverage? Or is it all unusable? GanzKnusper (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GanzKnusper For establishing notability and making any statements independent of the subject, I don't think can be done at all with such a source. Because there's no way to tell if the artist is being promoted by IDOL, even if they aren't listed. They could be used for biographical statements about the artist themselves but they would still need independent sources for establishing notability.---3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I suspected. Thanks for the response! GanzKnusper (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm sorry to disappoint.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Clean Singing, Teeth of the Divine, Metal Underground, The Metal Onslaught

I've started a discussion at WP:RS/N regarding these sources and if they are reliable. Input at that discussion would be appreciated, please.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]