Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50

New Publications

I have compiled a list of sources that are of significantly high quality that are not mentioned at WP:ALBUMS/REVSIT, which here are the following publications in alphabetical order by type of publication to consider. Please, Feel free to add your own sources to this list if you know of anymore.HotHat (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way ADM stands for AnyDecentMusic? and META stands for Metacritic.HotHat (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Please, comment on them if you will?HotHat (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I can now safely say that I have gone thru about every music review source out, and we have 96 new sources to use besides the ones that 3family6, Dan56 and HotHat have added before I started this discussion. WOW, I can't believe these were not included to begin with on the list.!HotHat (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Amazing, 105 sources excluded from the list!HotHat (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I've used the strikeout like this on sources that are already listed.--¿3family6 contribs 13:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's not forget The Times.--¿3family6 contribs 13:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC), five stars

Metacritic sources

These are the sources, Metacritic considers of great repute. So, we should consider them, too.HotHat (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If used by Metacritic, I'm pretty sure they're reliable.--¿3family6 contribs 01:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's their official list of aggregated review sources. Dan56 (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

      • For the video games wikiproject, there's a statement that most all widely circulated print media like major magazines and newspapers are reliable sources. Probably easier to do something like that than list all of those out... Sergecross73 msg me 04:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
        • But, if they are not on the list them some editors on here outright delete them.HotHat (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Yeah, on further inspection, WP:VG does list them, but as I said, its generally believed that major print media is reliable regardless of whether they are listed. I was thinking about non-topic-specific sources; for example, The New York Times isn't listed on the video game reliable source list because its not a video game-specific source, but a review from it would still be reliable, they just don't list it because it would get excessively long. Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:VG has a great set up for showing which sources are reliable or not. It's at WP:VG/S if anyone wants to look at it for reference. Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Property of Zack

This source was not even considered for the fact of "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc." So, it is a professional review site because it is a member of Spin Media, which is a highly reputable media conglomeration, and this means we have to move on to consider the other criteria. They have a "(paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)", so this means that it satisfies that requirement. Furthermore, they are "independent of the artist, record company", so this means they are trustworthy and noteworthy for their reviews. So, the previous debate had two editors that failed to consider it against this criteria.HotHat (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I hope you all caught the "or" involved, which means it just has to meet one not all.HotHat (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Fezmar9 and Illazilla on this one. If it's on Spin, then that's fine, but otherwise it just looks like his personal blogging thoughts, without any editorial oversight. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
You all are flat out wrong it is not "his personal blogging thoughts" in the least because of review one, review two review three, and they were written by Adrienne Fisher, Sydney Gore and Marc Gary Gray respectively, and they are all edited by their editor Erik van Rheenen. This is how it is supposed to be done for inclusion of the reviews on Wikipedia. I just oh so wish editors like Fezmar9 and Illazilla do their due diligence before banning a perfectly reliable resource like this one. You have listened to my argument Sergecross73, which is greatly commendable.HotHat (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm torn. On one hand, I understand Fezmar And Illazilla, who state that the source hasn't been around long and isn't referenced much in the music world. On the other hand, it does seem to have a staff. Do they have much of an editorial policy? Have any of the writers written for other reliable sources in the past? Sometimes it can be argued that a source is reliable if staff members were ex-Rolling Stone or ex-PopMatters writers or something. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Sydney Gore is a Billboard, and Erik van Rheenen has been an editor of The Daily Orange and writer for them.
Yeah, maybe we should at least make it what WP:VG calls a "situational source", where its only used in certain instances? Typically a "you can use it, but only if there isn't a reliable source saying the same thing" or a "not to be used for something controversial". Like its the first one to go if more common sources/reviews are found. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
All I want to do with any of these sources is to take reviews not to get BLP stuff, which is what REVSITE or REVSIT is all about. If we as a music community wanted to make a list dealing with sources to be used for differing purposes then we would restrict them to situational and put a perameter just for reviews and ratings only if they provide them with a rating of course. This is not like the games list, nor has the broad of scope. I hope that editors know their is a far lesser of a standard for inclusion for reviews/ratings than for BLP and other sensative information. All that is required is "editorial oversight" to make it pass RS because it does not have to pass N, which is for an article about the publication not for reviews. Thanks for taking the time Sergecross73.HotHat (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not know if you did not notice, but REVSITE was merged with the /Sources page so it is all together in one page. So to be included It should be able to be used for BLP information and critical reception. That is unless we make a separate section for sites that just should be used for critical reception. I do agree that PropertyofZack could be used in certain cases where there are not that many reviews by other major publications, as it does have professional reviewers. STATic message me! 05:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
@Hothat - It takes more than just "editorial oversight" - any old person can slap 4 names on an about page. Its also about if they have a history of fact checking, making errors, having much of a reputation in the music world, etc. I'm glad there's an effort to add more to this, as I've always felt the list was a little too restrictive, but at the same time, we don't want to lower the bar too low or oversimplify things either. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
@Static - Yes, I kind of think we should rearrange the list some. Less emphasis on whether or not its online or physical hardcopy (which has little to no significance as far as organization goes) and more on whether its reliable/situational/review-only etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I just want to thank you both for your constructive comments and suggestions, lets chew on this some more, and see what we come up with in terms of sourcing.HotHat (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I definitely agree. Maybe three sections for easy research of what sources are appropriate where, and anything in the "reliable" section can be used anywhere as to not relist it in the "review-only section. User: TenPoundHammer, User:3family6, User:Walter Görlitz, User: Dan56 any thoughts on a possible needed re-organization of the /Sources page? STATic message me! 02:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think such a reorganization is needed. If a site is questionable for use in BLPs, a notice can be posted next to it, as is already the case for Blabbermouth.net. As for distinguishing between sources for reviews and for general content, I think that isn't practical. While there are articles that are reviews, and others that are more general, both can be used for critical reception and general content info. Reviews often contain info about other albums or info about the artist(s), and general content articles will often include some critical analysis, so the distinction becomes blurred. As to eliminating the distinction between print and online sources, I'm fine with that, though with print sources it is nice to have the links to back issues. Maybe list those links in the url section of the table?--¿3family6 contribs 14:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Paradise (Lana Del Rey album)

I opened a RM discussion to move the page Paradise (Lana Del Rey album) to Paradise (Lana Del Rey EP), because it is an EP. The problem is that an user, named Status, insists that because WP:NCM#Disambiguation_2 states that "[w]hen necessary, disambiguation should be done using "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)"", he believes that articles should be disambiguated by "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)" alone, in other words "(EP)" is incorrect. For months he has moved a few pages from EP to album under the argument "An "EP" is a type of album. We do not say "[Artist] studio album" for studio albums", and we don't because the term "album" generally means "studio album". According to what I can read in NCM, this clause only refers the way articles should be disambiguated as an example to avoid article titles like Echo by Leona Lewis or Echo - Leona Lewis for example, not that they must be disambiguated this way, especially if we consider Wikipedians have used "(EP)" dabs for years.

According to WP:MOSALBUM "the term (EP) should be used for EPs, (video) for video albums and (album) for other albums, e.g. Insomniac (album) and Gas Food Lodging (EP)", which only favors the reason why it should be moved (not to mention this). I came here because Status insists that I should be the person who requests WP:NCM to include "EP" terms to the "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)" the guide refers--as if it is my fault he found a loophole and just because he moved some pages it represents now community consensus--. Anyway, because he won't come here, is there any possibility to change the ambiguity in NCM to avoid another editor interprets guidelines as policies to "When disambiguation is necessary, it should be done using "(band)" or "(group)", "(EP)" for EPs, "(video)" for video albums, "(soundtrack)" for soundtrack albums, "(film score)" for film score albums, and (album) for other albums, or "(song)" for songs and singles", or something better written but less ambiguous? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget "greatest hits albums" for greatest hits albums, "studio albums" for studio albums, "remix albums" for remix albums. — Status (talk · contribs) 06:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't forget it, I excluded it. If you believe they should be included, you should have opened this discussion in the first place. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
EP stands for Extended play and LP stands for Long player, and for it to be considered an album it needs to be an LP not an EP, which is not my opinion. It is even in the article, which it states that a "musical recording that contains more music than a single, but is too short to qualify as a full studio album or LP." So a single is one or two songs, an EP is three to eight songs, and in most cases nine or greater makes an album.HotHat (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
This is not cut and dry, so have it out!HotHat (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Does it contain four or more songs, and is it 25-plus minutes in length?HotHat (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it an LP or an EP? Irrespective of what any guideline says, WP:COMMONSENSE tells us not to disambiguate by something it is NOT. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
8 songs and 33 minutes looks like an album to me (and Album#Length agrees). That being said, WP:NCM is meant to explain disambiguation for topics that have both a musical and non-musical topic (as the examples given show, like Anthrax or Off the Wall), not for specific disambiguation between albums and EPs. WP:MOSALBUM is correct, if the release is an EP, the disambiguation of (EP) should be used (again, not in this case though, as this clearly appears to be an album). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I think Paradise closer example is The Fame Monster, both have eight tracks, and have similar lenght. Initially, TFM was catalogued to be a studio album because it was a deluxe re-release of The Fame but later there were at least five references calling it an EP, including Gaga, and like two saying "studio album". Eventually, with community consensus and these references, it was decided to be called an EP. With Paradise the same seems to happen. According to the article "In an interview with Tim Blackwell for Nova FM in Melbourne, Australia, Del Rey added that her upcoming November release would not be a new album, but more like an EP, which she described as the Paradise Edition of Born to Die." Despite the fact it is unsourced and it violates the BLP policy (WP:BLPSOURCES), the article have two references saying "EP", Metacritic and Tiny Mixtapes (I didn't check all refs). The problem here now is: if the album is an EP it should be moved to (EP), but if it is a studio album it shouldn't be moved but the infobox and non-quoted references describing it as an EP should be changed to "(studio) album". Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Addition

I have added Country Standard Time as a recommended source for reviews. The bottom of the site indicates an editor credit (Jeffrey B. Remz), and the site's archives stretch back to 1995, from when it was a print magazine. However, it doesn't seem complete — I saw a 1995 review quoted online, but couldn't find it in the archives. In this case, I would assume that the best bet would be to find the actual issue. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Eraserheads: The Final Set 03.07.09 - Official Or Bootleg?

Greetings, I just recently registered to this site and would like to point out the authenticity of the article Eraserheads: The Final Set 03.07.09. It's been over four years since 2009, and I have yet to find an official live album release of this concert. So far, no official release of the concert (digital or physical copy) can be found on any of the country's record bars, nor on any online retailers. And only a bootleg copy (likely recorded from the stage soundboard) has been circulating among various file-sharing sites, and any official release that does exist are in the form of digital video downloads (full concert or clips per song) from the SMART Mobile Store. The only site that does recognize this as an official live album has been Wikipedia, but I don't see any listed sources. Please take into consideration of this request in further clarifying the article. Thank you and keep the knowledge flowing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faroush Freyjadour (talk • contribs) 09:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Categorizing redirects

Looking in Category:Suzi Quatro albums, redirects for alternate titles or spellings of albums are being categorized the same as the album to which they redirect to. This doesn't make sense. If an album was determined to lack the notability for a stand-alone artice but still a reasonable search time, a redirect to the artist or discography could be created and categorized in the manner of any album with an article, but why would one categorize redirects like If You Knew Suzi in this manner? That's like categorizing the same album twice and gives the impression that they are not the same album. Thanks. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Redirects for the relevant recommendations by the members of Wikiproject Albums: "Finally, note that consensus has determined that everything written here about categorizing album articles applies to redirects about albums as well. These can—and should—be categorized in the same fashion as full-fledged articles, so long as the target article contains verifiable information of such categorization..." — Peter Loader (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
You're misinterpreting what it says, because the statement above implies that there is no stand-alone article for the album already. What would it accomplish to categorize Nirvana's Nevermind, Nevermind (album), Nevermind (Nirvana album), Nirvana Nevermind (which all redirect to Nevermind) in Category:Nirvana (band) albums? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Peter, have a look at Category:Suzi Quatro albums and explain what use there is to having the same album listed more than once? Then you will see why Starcheer is correct and misspellings, alternative titles, and other paraphernalia are not catted in duplicate. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you are both right — I missed the bit about Category:Redirects from albums in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Redirects. Sorry, Peter Loader (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Japanese songs and albums

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Japanese song and album titles in regards to Japanese song titles and WP:ALBUM is relevant to the discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Inside Man

I see the Albums project tag on the talk page of the film, Inside Man. I don't understand why.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Piero Scaruffi reviews (again)

Soul Crusher (talk · contribs) has been going around album articles adding reviews to this guy, seemingly not for the first time. They're all on Scaruffi's personal web site, but he does appear to be a known expert on the topic. I dug through old discussions here and here. He does seem notable enough to have his own article, and I'm reluctant to scream "Unreliable source!", because for all I know he might be Italy's answer to Charles Shaar Murray and Jann Wenner. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This article gives background about him. I think the problem is that, however comprehensive and authoritative he may seem to be, he is still, essentially, self-publishing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I take a pragmatic view on it. I'd be dead against citing him to write factual content, but I'd be okay with linking to his reviews if it's obvious that it's his personal opinion. Meanwhile, we need to come to a consensus as Soul Crusher has added Scaruffi reviews to over 500 articles just this morning - I've told him to stop and discuss here, and I've reverted a few FAs he's touched as I definitely think it's controversial enough to fall foul of WP:FACR criteria 1c. (It crosses my mind that he might be Scaruffi, though obviously I can't prove that). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Like Ritchie333, I wouldn't want to see this source supporting factual content or, if I'm honest, even being used as an inline citation at all. SoulCrusher has added links to Scaruffi's site to a number of Byrds-related articles that I regularly work on -- in the professional reviews section. I'm fine with that. However, it seems that Scaruffi is somewhat notable - he has a Wiki article for example. But yeah, using him in the "professional reviews" box is OK, but I don't think he's a reliable enough source for proper inline citations. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
His "reviews" are not much more than a rating of 1 to 10 with the text being an overview of the artist that includes mention of said albums. It is written in Italian and translated by others, hopefully accurately. Piriczki (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
So the consensus is to keep? Or something else? I noticed he's done a bunch of Van Morrison albums. --NeilN talk to me 13:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I am a strong DON'T KEEP. The two reviews that I looked at (and removed) offered nothing insightful. (Parahprase) " The Who were one of the great British 60s bands along with the Kinks and the Rolling Stones." No Beatles? How useful is that? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Whether Scaruffi is notable himself or not, I don't think his reviews add anything to help the reader. Far, far more comprehensive reviews are available elsewhere (and more reliably), and I don't think their inclusion is terribly encyclopedic. The Fleetwood Mac reviews added yesterday are simply a mark out of ten with no review in English whatsoever, the Italian reviews not being wholly accurate. My 2p worth is to take them out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's a strong keep for me. Some of his biographies are brief, such as those for the Fleetwood Mac page, but in-depth critical assessments of bands can be accessed on his site (The Rolling Stones, Who and Velvet Underground to name a few). I don't read anything inaccurate in the Fleetwood Mac Italian language reviews, although I do find them a bit too compact.--Soul Crusher (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
This seems like one of the less-notable review sources, which may be useful for articles without enough notability/third-party coverage to have more notable review sources available. His reviews from the website seem like excerpts from the few books of his on music; he has been published (I've cited him at Song of Innocence for a line), and disagreeing with his views on the Beatles isn't really relevant, since that would greatness and quality is subjective, even if he's in the minority on that one. Nonetheless, he is clearly far less notable than the reviewers already cited in the articles you have added his score to, and to solely paste his review score in numerous articles isn't adhering to the spirit of the ratings template, which is meant as an optional supplement to the text. Soul Crusher, please consider incorporating relevant commentary from Scaruffi, which is more important than the score he assigns. Dan56 (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course, I consider his critical commentary more valuable than the rating he assigns and plan to introduce excerpts from his reviews into the articles. I put links to his site in the ratings box so readers can easily access them at their convenience and so editors can have the source immediately on hand if they wish to cite him.--Soul Crusher (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I do agree that the album articles that are ranked as "low-important" on the project's scale need to use his reviews simply because there aren't other more professional reviews. As for the albums with higher notability, Scaruffi reviews should be omitted if other more reliable reviews are available.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd disagree that his reviews be included only on "low-important" articles. Many high importance articles are lacking in critical reviews (My Generation by The Who, for example).--Soul Crusher (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I said if better reviews are available.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying.--Soul Crusher (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree entirely, if only on the length of most of his reviews and not because he isn't a notable critic – his essays are often very informative and detailed, but his specific album reviews are often written as short summaries as part of a larger body of text, which aren't usually as useful for extended critical discussion as other, equally reliable sources are. Inevitably, he will use this discussion the next time he slags off Wikipedia as proof of how horrendous, biased and non-neutral it is. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The so called reviews Soul Crusher added to every Black Sabbath album article are nothing more than the same Italian language overview of Black Sabbath's career. There are brief mentions of the various albums but no actual reviews of any of them. In cases such as this I feel they should be reverted simply because they bring nothing to the articles. I'd prefer genuine reviews that actually provide a legitimate critique or evaluation of the subject. ChakaKongtalk 02:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Piero Scaruffi is the Italian Robert Christgau because all Christgau takes is the album, which he assigns a grade to, and talks about it for a paragraph. What Scaruffi does is he integrates them into the longstanding biography he has about the band(s) in question, and by the way go and translate them to get some prose. I think if we keep using Christgau we should at least do the same with Scaruffi. Both reviewers don't give ideal reviews for an encyclopedia per se, but for the older albums this is all we are left with, which is quite unfortunate.HotHat (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    • An Italian music critic, Piero Scaruffi called the album Master of Reality one that is yet "another raw gallery of nightmares", and felt that the style that the band had going on here was "crystallized in an almost classical" performance. (This was translated by Google)HotHat (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I encourage ChakaKong to take a look at Robert Christgau, who doesn't offer much in terms of an actual critique of the musical material like Piero Scaruffi does with the same material.
Scaruffi is the Italian Christgau? Can you back that up? ChakaKongtalk 06:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The length of Christgau's reviews vary a lot – a lot of his reviews are a single paragraph, but many of them are more extensive (see his reviews of Eminem albums as a comparison): his website also contains several of the even longer reviews he has published in various publications (see links at the bottom of the same page). Also, your example of Black Sabbath may not put Christgau's reviewing in the best light: he has admitted in the past that he doesn't like heavy metal in general, along with several other genres, so I'm not surprised that he's spent such little time reviewing albums by Black Sabbath (or Metallica, or Megadeth, or Slayer, or Anthrax... you get the idea). Perhaps he's just not the best source to consult on heavy metal albums, because his discussion of other musicians he may not like, but whose music contains genres that he does like, is often far more detailed. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 07:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I was actually about to bring up Christgau. His reviews can be quite brief, with his review of Angel Dust consisting of five words: "but it's really great shit." Yet he is cited regularly and is viewed as a credible source. Also, you are exaggerating in saying that Scaruffi has failed to cover any one of Sabbath's albums at length. There is a sizable critique of Paranoid on the page you linked to.--Soul Crusher (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
@Soul Crusher: Actually, if you translate the prose you'll find that there's barely a mention of Paranoid in it, so I am not exaggerating in the least. Did you even attempt to translate any of this stuff before plastering it all over Wikipedia? Aside from referring to three songs from the album as "masterpieces", there's no actual examination of the album at all. Let's look at the albums Technical Ecstasy and Never Say Die!; Scaruffi dedicates an entire sentence to both albums collectively, saying only (in translation) "After the terrible Technical Ecstasy (1976) and the horrendous Never Say Die (1978), Osbourne left the group and was replaced by Ronnie James Dio." Really? Why are they terrible and horrendous? These purported critiques provide no type of detailed evaluation whatsoever and therefor bring nothing constructive to the articles. ChakaKongtalk 17:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I was reading the text as an examination of the album Paranoid and that point in Black Sabbath's existence, which informed one another.--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, The New York Times called Piero Scaruffi website "The Greatest Web Site of All Time" back in 2006. He was mentioned in the Chicago Tribune article.HotHat (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Because all of his stuff is in Italian and he does not do reviews in English then many English-based publication don't look at him, nor does Italian-based publications because like I would think if an Italian music reviewer was writing reviews in Italian on English-language album then they are not high up on their radar screens. However, if it was an Italian reviewer covering Italian music, then yes they would cover him more.HotHat (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me or does this," I . . . . plan to introduce excerpts from his reviews into the articles. I put links to his site in the ratings box so readers can easily access them at their convenience and so editors can have the source immediately on hand if they wish to cite him.." ("cite him?") sound a lot like AGENDA to anyone else? Though I am not quite sure what the agenda is. Scaruffi is on the record for saying that the public should NOT trust wikipedia and that editors should insert untrue information to underscore this "fact." Now we have someone cramming Scaruffi into every possible crack and crevice. This means what? Carptrash (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ALBUM/SOURCES#Non-English reviews – Just wanted to point this out: "English-language reviews are preferred, as languages other than English are not understood by a large number of readers. However, if few reviews exist, reviews in languages other than English may be included, especially if the language is especially relevant to the album in question." I mention this just as something those debating this person's reviews should keep in mind (I'm not really for or against the inclusion of his reviews in general). If the review for a particular album article is in Italian, and other reviews are already available, then we should probably avoid using his reviews. If there exist only a handful of other reviews, then I think we can justify using his reviews. If his "review" is little more than a sentence (or half a sentence, for the Black Sabbath albums quoted above), that's not really a review and should not be used at all. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I can understand not listing his review if it consists of an terse assertion, like Technical Ecstacy being "terrible". Although I should mention that editors regularly cite lists which is viewed as acceptable. For example, in the "release and reception" on the Vol. 4 page it states: "Kerrang! magazine listed the album at No. 48 among the "100 Greatest Heavy Metal Albums of All Time." This simply provides the reader with knowledge of the album's ranking on a list and says nothing of the author's opinion of why the ranking is as such. This is also true of the Q magazine quote listed later in the paragraph. If we are looking for only lengthy and in-depth analysis's to be included in the article, and I'm not saying that Scaruffi or Christgau fail to meet this criteria, why are these lists and rankings readily accepted?--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You're referring to material within the prose of the article. That requires nothing more than a reliable source. It's a bit different than "professional reviews" listed within the Album Ratings template. These reviews "can not be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars or other numeric score"; essentially the Scaruffi material is offering nothing, in many instances, but such a numeric score with no additional evaluation. That alone is enough to warrant its exclusion. ChakaKongtalk 00:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, we cannot let just a standalone rating exist without some backing up by the critic or the publication in question with a response in terms of prose to justify that rating. It is like saying Nadia Comăneci was given a perfect ten without a routine in question to back up the judges/critics opinion of the work/album. The album is the routine, the critics are the judges, and the score or rating gives a justifiable reason for the response. The prose is the rationale for the response given by the score. EVIDENCE!HotHat (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to add, Christgau is NOT comparable to Scaruffi, who took music reviews up after establishing himself in the science field and is notable primarily for that. Christgau is one of the most prolific, influential, and arguably most important popular music critic. The length of the review is irrelevant; especially for us as editors, we have to condense a critic's main points in a sentence or two, so I don't see how an article-length review from a website like Pitchfork is any more convenient than one paragraph from Christgau's Consumer Guide reviews (most of which are archived at his website from his CG columns for The Village Voice, Creem, and MSN, spanning back to the late '60s) He's written for nearly every notable publication that has a music column, created the Pazz & Jop poll, written several books (not published by a self-publishing company such as iUniverse, like Scaruffi's books are), taught English, journalism, and music history at several universities, and helped pioneer rock criticism with the likes of Greil Marcus and Dave Marsh. As a rule-of-thumb, Christgau's opinion should not be omitted. Scaruffi on the other hand is not essential. Also, Christgau usually does not limit how he received an album to his Consumer Guide column; for example, while this review of Sgt. Peppers for Creem is a straightforward two-liner, Googling "site:robertchristgau.com 'Sgt. Pepper'" leads to several other articles, namely this one for Esquire in 1967 where he elaborates on the album. Dan56 (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
So, you don't care as long as Christgau just assigns a grade with no text to contextualize his grade then you are fine with that being on here with nothing else.HotHat (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I would put Gary Graff (rock and country) and Brian Mansfield (country and christian) to be in that realm as well with the likes of Christgau, Marcus, and Marsh. I am the only one to go and get Graff's reviews from The Oakland Press every week and put them on here. By the way, Graff's reviews are published and reprinted in a multitude of other papers across the USA.HotHat (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
On a side note, I was just comparing their review lengths and scope to each other "talks about it for a paragraph," but I can see that Scaruffi is not Christgau in stature. At the same time, I have a higher standard, when it comes to the review quality that I want on this encyclopedia. Pitchfork is not ideal to me either, and on every album's critical reception someone wants to stick it in!HotHat (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think consensus here is to ONLY take Piero Scaruffi's ratings and reviews if their is not many of them on a particular work, however at the oft chance on the older albums where we have many reviews and ratings his is to be OMITTED. In addition, Scaruffi is not equal to Christgau nor the likes of Marcus, Marsh, Graff and Mansfield in the music journalism profession.HotHat (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I hate to sound pedantic, but how many is "many"? If Scaruffi is only to be used where there are not many other reviews, it would be useful to clarify what that means, otherwise there could be a case-by-case conflict about whether 3 other reviews is enough to mean Scaruffi should not be used or whether there needs to be at least 4 or 5 or some other number. 99.192.51.236 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I would consider "many" like ten or more. It also depends on how useful Scaruffi's reviews are. If he has an especially good insight, minority opinion, or other contributions of the like, then it might be good to include him.--¿3family6 contribs 18:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I would say that the Scaruffi "reviews" be utilized only when literally nothing else is available. ChakaKongtalk 18:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I go along with defining "many" as being "when there is nothing else." Carptrash (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Many can mean 1) consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number 2) being one of a large but indefinite number, which is the definition taken from Merriam-Webster. I would say many is between five and ten, Metacritic considers four reviews enough to assign a Metascore.HotHat (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that if his review is more extensive and critical then it should more likely be included in the article. For example, his album by album reviews of Beefheart, Radiohead, Tool, Type O Negative, Velvet Underground, etc. are more in-depth compared to other artists he's critiqued. More importantly, something substantial, like a quotation, should be added to the "critcal reception" section of the article. This will provide the reader with knowledge other than simply what number the critic has assigned to the record.--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

AllisonCroweNewfoundlandVinylalbumbackcover.jpg

image:AllisonCroweNewfoundlandVinylalbumbackcover.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the Correct Way to Treat Remixes?

Please take part in the above discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#What is the Correct Way to Treat Remixes? 17:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Music Genre For Earl (Mixtape)

I Think If Someone is trying to make changes to the mixtape's genre they should at least add Hardcore hip hop to it because as you notice on the lyrics Earl Sweatshirt uses hardcore lyrics throughout the whole mixtape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.150.244 (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The Thom Bell Sessions/Elton John

I bought this album when it first came out and still have it. Recorded it and converted it to MP3's the other day. In order to populate the details on the files I came here. When I did I found that the tracks are listed in the exact opposite order that they're on my album. Mama Can't Buy You Love followed by Three Way Love Affair on side one. Are you Ready For Love alone on side 2.Daleshouse (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

On Rare Earth album "One World"

There seems to be an error or misunderstainding regarding the certification status of the album "One World" and the hit single contained therein, "I Just Want To Celebrate," by Rare Earth. "One World" has not earned the Gold Record certification by RIAA as of today (August 31, 2013). The third and last Gold Record by Rare Earth is "Rare Earth In Concert," the following album to "One World."

Regarding the hit single off the album, "I Just Want To Celebrate," it did went as high as # 7 at Hot 100 of Billboard Magazine, but it has not earned Gold Record certification by RIAA as of today either.

Masato Ata a/k/a Boonzzy Tokyo, Japan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.26.120.123 (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Is About.com a reliable source for album reviews?

Hi, can I use this. Thanks in advance. --Niwi3 (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's another one, like Sputnik Music, where its okay on the assumption that its "staff", and not just a random "user". That's pretty much how WP:VG has a consensus on it over at WP:VG/S too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Good to know, thank you. --Niwi3 (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Multiple WP:RSN discussions result in the reliability of the article's author be determined; being on About.com does not in itself make the piece reliable. Anthony Carew has written for Rolling Stone and The Age, so he is a reliable source for alternative music. Adabow (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Alright. I previously added About.com to the list of sources, but it is good to have a consensus just in case.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Since it is questionable, consensus probably should have been achieved prior to its addition. My question is if there is an easy way to tell the difference between a staff review and a random user review, rather than searching the author (which I assume most users will not do). I was under the impression that About.com is generally an unreliable source, keep in mind WP:ALBUM/SOURCES is for sources that can be used throughout articles as reliable, not just in review sections. STATic message me! 10:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
This is yet another example of the biggest mistake I see in these types of discussions; two or three editors take a position and all of a sudden they feel that they're achieved consensus because their opposition has been outvoted. Consensus is not reached by voting. It is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. The quality of the argument in favor of adding about.com as a reliable source is, at best, less than adequate. As the previous editor alluded to, we need to be absolutely sure that about.com is reliable 100% of the time. We already know that it most certainly isn't, as much of its content is user contributed. About.com should be used as a reliable source only on a case by case basis, only when the specific content has been discussed here. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 13:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we just leave a note "staff reviews only"? And by the way, I haven't noticed that common users were doing album reviews on that site.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we just leave a note "staff reviews only"? No, that will just leave the door open for editors to start using about.com in instances in which it is not reliable. It's a potential can of worms that can be easily avoided by simply keeping it off the list. Anyone who wants to use a particular review can inquire here beforehand. That's not unreasonable. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 14:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I've noted that the staff reviews contain a note "About.com Guide" before the author's name. See link above or this one. As opposite, reviews by users don't contain such a note, see here. I think this answers STATicVerseatide's question.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
And to prove that About.com is not just about album reviews, here's the Beatles biography, done by a staff member.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question, yes this can be used as a source. However, there is clearly no consensus to add about.com to the list of reliable sources, thus the list can remain as is in that regard. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 16:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have already come to your conclusion regardless of the opinion of other editors. I clearly answered how to make differences between staff analysis and users posts and even proved that About.com is not just a site for album reviews. I'm still waiting for Static's answer, but regardless, I don't see how the texts from that site can not be trusted if they are written by experts from this area.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Another example: The article "History of Hip-Hop" can be used because it is written by Henry Adaso, a professional critic with solid background. He is recognizable by the "About.com Guide" after his name. If you click on his name, you will see his full professional experience. Same goes for Rock Music, Heavy Metal, Soul Music and so on.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
@Вик Ретлхед: No, I'm simply trying to explain that no consensus has been reached to add about.com to the list of reliable sources. It's not my opinion at all, its the guidelines. You are required to establish consensus in order to have this source added to the list, and I'm merely pointing out that this hasn't occurred. I am agreeing with you that certain reviews from about.com, contributed by reliable about.com staff, can be allowed as sources. The point I'm trying to make is that adding about.com to the list would be potentially unwise; it would quite likely produce considerable subsequent problems with editors blindly adding content that is unreliable simply because they glanced at the list and saw about.com listed there. I realize there are similar sources such as Punknews.org already on the list, but the types of problems I'm describing have arisen from their inclusion. All I'm saying is that about.com should be allowed as a source only on a case-by-case basis, as it does not always satisfy all criteria for reliable sources. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 17:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems that adding it (well, keeping it there) would be reasonable if a similar note to Sputnik Music was added, except in this case we would say something like "Use staff reviews only, recognizable by the tag 'About.com Guide'" and providing a link. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. My propose is to list it with note saying something like: "Only use if it has 'About.com Guide' tag in front of the author's name".--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, once the presiding administrator considers this debate and makes the decision to have it added to the list, you'll be free to do it. Until then, you are not. Remember, this is not a democracy and your votes of support mean nothing. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 17:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Referring to ChakaKong's post, if we accept your opinion, it would be logical to remove Blabbermouth.net, Drowned in Sound, Jesus Freak Hideout, Metal Storm, Punknews.org and Sputnikmusic because they all feature user comments and because they don't "always satisfy all criteria for reliable sources".--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
You are showing your ignorance of the principles and guidelines of Wikipedia. My stance is based upon the definition of consensus as it applies to instances such as the one we're discussing. There's no place here for opinion, mine or yours. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 18:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe I brought only facts to the table. Nowhere did I vote, at no time I acted against the guidelines. Your only argument against was "it will leave the door open for editors to start using about.com in instances in which it is not reliable." By putting a note, editors will know which articles should they use from that source. I think that addressed your contra-argument. BTW, one guideline says that Wikipedians should be leaning towards a compromise.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I have compromised!!! Re-read the discussion! It is you who refuses to bend from your position. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 18:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright then, don't add it if you think it will blind-lead new editors. Geez, it's not worthy to discuss this all day long.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
My belief is rather than adding it to the list, we can use it in a case by case basis. Yes a few reviews are done by notable reviewers, but the majority of content on the website is unreliable, and this is supposed to be the undeniable list of reliable sources when it comes to albums/music. ChakaKong's point above about users using About.com just because they glanced at the list, and saw it there is just the fear I have if we add it there. STATic message me! 18:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Upon re-reading the entire discussion, I believe this was the resolution we've came up with: About.com should not be added to the list of recommended sources. However, it can be used in articles only if the text is edited by professional critics, recognizable by tag "About.com Guide" and with rich professional pedigree. Everyone agree?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I still don't understand the argument about users vs. professional content. What users? From what I've gathered from reading About.com's editorial policy, all contributors must be approved and go through an initial editorial process to even have content featured. In addition, the site holds editorial oversight over the contributions. How is this not meet Wikipedia's RS guidelines?--¿3family6 contribs 18:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I would rather call them outside contributors. In my first post I also wondered if this website actually publishes user comments, but another editor claimed that "much of its content is user contributed".--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I've gather in the past, it's okay to use About.com if you're only going to have an article GA. But as far as featured article material, the relibilty becomes questionable. Erick (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Not all "staff" articles are reliable (I didn't even know users could submit articles). For example, Mark Edward Nero has written for various reliable newspapers, and is an established music journalist. However, Bill Lamb's bio says he is a "music journalist specializing in pop music. He has been covering the world of pop music on the Internet since 1999." He has no experience writing for newspapers or music magazines, and neither does he have an academic qualification in pop music. I often see his work used as sources for music articles, but they get slammed when taken to FAC. Check out the writer's expertise in their writing field, before seeing "About.com Guide" and thinking 'oh, OK good, that's reliable". Adabow (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice required

Can the community make comment whether this can be included in an article. Thanks.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A quick Google search isn't bringing up much of anything that could be used to verify Tony Pascarella's credentials as a reliable source. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 14:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Another editor wanted to use it in an article that I'm reviewing.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The source is not self-published, so what is the problem?--¿3family6 contribs 18:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that I see nothing to confirm that the writer can reasonably be classified as a professional music journalist, or that the source itself (the-trades.com) has its own editorial and writing staff; their contributors are listed as exactly that: contributors. Not staff. Where are their credentials? ChakaKongLet's talk about it 18:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
They have a professional editorial staff: [4] And what does it matter whether the writers are called "contributors" or "staff?" The site holds editorial oversight over the writers, and the site itself is published by a third-party agency. What's the matter if the writer did a free-lance contribution without being an official staff member? Where does WP:RS indicate that the writer must hold an official position for that organization? WP:MOSALBUM#Critical reception says that reliable sources can be found "within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." [emphasis added] My point is, if Pascarella himself were being cited alone, his credentials would matter more, but as his work is published by a third party, there's no problem with it. As to whether a better source could be found, that's a different issue.--¿3family6 contribs 23:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

How to add articles

How does one add proposed articles for deletion in the "Article Alerts" section on this project page?--Mycomp (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It's automatic, though not instantaneous, as long as the album article proposed for deletion has an album infobox or has the WikiProject Albums banner on its talk page. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you.--Mycomp (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Scene Point Blank

I would like to suggest the addition of webzine Scene Point Blank as well. It is ten years old, published thousands of reviews, features, and news, and has an editorial staff. Ratings are given on a ten point scale (with decimals). Lorenspb (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenspb (talk • contribs) 00:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

HitFix

Is HitFix a reliable source as a review website? It is not included in the list. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I've used it in the past for TV-related articles. The article's lead shows that its used by a lot of big name, reliable sources too, so that's probably a good sign. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Then, I guess it wouldn't be a problem to add it to the list? Myxomatosis57 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Possibly a reliable source for news, but definitely not for music reviews. As far as I can tell their music reviews and ratings are submitted by users, which means zero fact checking and zero editorial oversight. I say no way. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 15:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
They have staff revies, such as these ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]), under the "Immaculate Noise" section. These reviews contain both staff and user ratings. It is basicly like Sputnikmusic. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think we should treat it like Sputnik then... Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
So, it is qualified as a source, I guess? Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, as long as we use it like Sputnikmusic, basically. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Music Box

Hi. Has anyone got any thoughts on the eligibility of Music Box album reviews, for inclusion in the reviewer ratings? A number of their reviews currently do appear in wikipedia album articles, but I've also noticed instances where others have been removed, the user citing self-published sources. From the few reviews I've read, Music Box pieces seem well written, balanced, and with a good perspective on how the release in question fits into the artist's work; and, in the case of reissues/remasters, how well they serve collectors decades later. They're certainly to the standard of PopMatters, Paste Magazine and others. Here's one I'd like to add: [12].

Quality's not the issue, I realise, and I can't claim to have done any great research on the site. But I've come across a music journalist who used to write for them, Douglas Heselgrave, and who now works for Paste Magazine. What interests me about him – in that it lifts Music Box's status imo – is the access he had to musicians of the calibre of Ravi Shankar and Zakir Hussein. While at Music Box, he interviewed both Shankar and Hussein – which is pretty impressive. It certainly appears as though the site has writers on staff, which is one of the criteria for inclusion. Any thoughts – perhaps this one has come up in the past? JG66 (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:James singles

Category:James singles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.
This notice was originally posted at WikiProject Songs but there is an argument that "Singles" are more similar to "Albums" than to "Songs". So, this WikiProject is welcome to weigh in on possible changes to the taxonomy. Liz Read! Talk! 17:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Relevant CfD

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_28#Category:Classical_albums_by_date Since I created it, you know how I hope you'll !vote but either way, feedback is useful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about collapsing music track lists

I have started a new discussion about collapsing track lists at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Collapsing_music_track_lists. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about Acid Rap

I have started a new discussion about moving or redirecting a mixtape album by the name of Acid Rap to Acid Rap (album) or Acid Rap (mixtape) over at Talk:Acid Rap#No_contrary_evidence. Ben0kto (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

absolutepunk staff reviews?

Why are these accepted? As a current reviewer, I can tell you there is 0 editorial process or oversight. In reality, there is no separate process at all from a user review except for the fact that "staff" reviews are highlighted on the front page. I love my job there, but I love Wikipedia more and would rather we improve our great community here with real sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.173.165 (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Disney theme park albums

Hello. I wanted to let you know that most of the articles in this category are currently up for deletion – either as prod or as a full AfD. De728631 (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Reviews

Hi. Sorry for bringing this topic here, but can anyone help me find more reviews on Hidden Treasures (EP)? So far I only managed to find the Chicago Tribune. Thanks in advance.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Album reviews

Am I correct in thinking that ten reviews is the upper limit for albums? Please could someone look at the new Arcade Fire album Reflektor, as the reception section is bloating up to 15 or 16 reviews. I'm not sure which ones to "cull". Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll say Tiny Mix Tapes because as far as I know it is rarely used in other album articles. Another cut might be Q magazine since there is no available link to the review.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

GA reviewers needed

The Good Article project has a bit of a backlog in popular music; out of the five oldest nominations on the project right now, for example, all five are popular music-related. Unfortunately, this is an area where WP:GAN always gets more editors interested in nominating than in reviewing. Would anyone be willing to review an article or two to help reduce the wait? It doesn't take long, helps out other editors, and is a fun way to learn about some off-beat material. Cheers and thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll step in.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Anybody else who could pitch in, too, your help would be greatly appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding guidance to Infobox album regarding English language

HairyWombat points out this has been discussed three times previously, but there is yet another discussion about when to use the language parameter in Template:Infobox album, especially with regard to English language. Please feel free to comment at Template talk:Infobox album#Language parameter for English-only albums?

The discussion has progressed quickly and is now about whether the following recently added guidance wording is too strong:

  • Do not use this field for albums entirely in the English language, by English-speaking artists.

See you there... Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


Double album vs two albums released on same day

I just started an article yesterday (63/19) about two mixtapes released on the same day as a double album. I didn't really know how to name the article, or if it should be one article or two. I made it one article because most people are treating it as a single entity. However, that's not true across the board, and it might make sense to split them into two separate articles. I'm especially running into problems with the {{album reviews}} template because I want to use it twice (all of the reviews that give numbered-style ratings that nicely fit into the template give separate ratings to each album), but I don't know how to specify which use would be for which album. Thoughts? -- Irn (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Hello everyone. I've nominated a few albums articles (here and here) for de-listing them from GA. Decided to contact only this project because I believe it's more likely to get some response here than on WP:METAL. Anyway, if someone is interested in checking my notes and the quality of articles, can post an opinion on links pointed above. Thanks in advance.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Concern has been previously raised about those sources [13]. I note that the reviews were done by two different reviewers, both of whom are very experienced. The reviews are short, and don't mention the sourcing, but reviewers don't always write out what they have done to ensure the article meets criteria - most will simply do the checking, and only mention those areas which concern them. In general the smaller the topic, the smaller the review, and these are very small topics with little to read or research. I suspect the reviewers will have checked out the sources, so it would be useful to get them involved, and I'll drop them a line. SilkTork ✔Tea time 02:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware that there aren't many reviews for those albums, but still, we shouldn't be using comments by ordinary users as critic's opinion. By the way, I've contacted Wizardman and the nominator, and it would be nice if you can post an opinion on the reassessment page.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox album#Proposed addition of a "format" parameter

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the possibility of adding a parameter for release format(s) in the album infobox. Feel free to stop by and give some feedback. WikiRedactor (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Scaruffi (probably about the fifth time now ..)

I constantly see this guy's reviews listed on various rock and alternative album pages. Indeed, a couple of editors seem to be quite active in adding them. I know it's been discussed in the past, but although the broad consensus seems to have been that he should not be used, there doesn't seem to have been any clear agreement to remove existing references or to stop people adding yet more. I really can't see the value in adding even the ratings from a self-published website. Yes, he had a brief write-up once in the New York Times, seven years ago, but he is not a noted or acknowledged reviewer or critic. N-HH talk/edits 12:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional columns for Template:Track listing

Please see discussion at Help talk:Template#Track Listing Tables. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirects for singles/songs to album article

I have asked a question at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Redirects_for_singles.2Fsongs_to_album_article which may be relevant to this page too. (the question is: "I see Category:John Lennon songs, Category:Bob Dylan songs contains many album songs, presumably so that Users can find them in A-Z using category. Is this practice encouraged/discouraged?" ) Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Radio3Net

Radio3Net (also known as Radio Romania) have just changed their website. They were known for having a wide range of classic rock albums that could be streamed, including all the 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. Under WP:MUSICSTREAM a number of album articles are linked to Radio3Net. At the moment none of the links would work, and it's difficult to work out if the site intends to resume streaming albums. Under WP:LINKROT we are encouraged not to remove broken links when they are used as citations, but we can remove them when they purely used as External links, as these music links are. There are over 300 articles that link to Radio3Net, and most of those are likely to be linking to streamed albums that are currently not accessible.

My suggestion is that all links are commented out until it is known for certain what Radio3Net intend to do with their streamed albums. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal Why not just remove these? As a practical matter, anyone could hear almost any of these albums in their entirety streaming from (e.g.) YouTube. Although plenty of sites streaming this music are not approved content providers, the fact that this one is is surely some loophole of Romanian law. If readers of our encyclopedia want to listen to an album that's not free content then it's up to them to find it, just like how if they want to read a book that's not freely available, they can go to the library. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The records are not streamed on YouTube, and the artists don't get paid. The significance of Radio3Net was that it was licensed, so that the artists did get paid, and the music could not be downloaded. So it was all legal and complied with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Because Radio3Net may return to streaming once the website upgrade is finished, it may be useful to keep the links there for a while, though hidden. SilkTork ✔Tea time 05:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: all streaming music can be downloaded without exception. You just sometimes have to be more tech savvy about it. If it successfully plays through your speakers then it's running through your sound card, which can be recorded off of (even if it's not set up to do normally do that there are ways). If it plays successfully it can be recorded. End of story. Probably not without quality loss mind you, though possibly without NOTICEABLE quality loss. 24.68.154.229 (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone might want to fix the "The Auteurs vs Muziq" page. It's Mu-ziq or μ-Ziq but never Muziq.

Someone might want to fix the title of the "The Auteurs vs Muziq" page. It's Mu-ziq or μ-Ziq but never Muziq. I'd fix it myself but since it's the title of the page I can't figure out how, plus it would break any link to that page wouldn't it? My wiki fu is not strong enough. 24.68.154.229 (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Harder than I imagined, because "μ" is on the title blacklist. Anyway, I've moved it to The Auteurs vs. Mu-Ziq for now, which is better than it was before. Also, some more references for that article are required - as it stands, it could fail the notability guidelines. — sparklism hey! 15:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

SPY album 1979 by Carly Simon american singer songwriter (message sent 18/12/2013,

--110.175.84.135 (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There is an error in the Personnel section for the SPY album by Carly Simon; but I won't edit it myself. The keyboard player should be listed as IAN MCLAGAN, not 'Ian McLaughlin'. I know this for a fact because I have McLagan's autobiography 'All the Rage', and on 390 it says McLagan played on Carly Siom's SPY album in 1979. People tend to misspell 'McLagan' or get his name confused with other musicians. Simply trying to be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.84.135 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 

 Sorry. See my message above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.84.135 (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 Done I've wikilinked Ian McLagan to Spy (Carly Simon album). Thanks. — sparklism hey! 08:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Naming convention for soundtrack albums

Hi. Sound soundtrack albums have "Music from the Motion Picture Soundtrack" as part of their name, or should they simply be "film name (album)"? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Naming It seems to me like "Music from the Film [X]" is how they should be named if that's what's right there on the cover. Sometimes, there's also "More Music from the Film [X]" or "Music Inspired by the Film [X]" or "The Original Score to [X]" in addition. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Albums with collaberations

If an album has a certain number of featured notable artists, does that make it a notable album? For example if a mix-tape by an artist features 5+ featured artists whom have their own Wikipedia pages, does that make that mix-tape notable and worthy of a page? - SilentDan297 talk 00:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The cover art for Pete Sinfield's "Still" is "The Big Friend" by Sulamith Wülfing.

The Description section for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PeteSinfieldStill.jpg states: "This is the cover art for Still (Pete Sinfield album) by the artist Pete Sinfield. The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, Manticore, or the graphic artist(s), unknown."

The picture is "The Big Friend" by Sulamith Wülfing, which, apparently, Sinfield used to own but was destroyed by fire.

The use of Sulamith Wülfing's "The Big Friend" as cover art for Sinfield's album "Still" is already cited on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulamith_W%C3%BClfing#Influence_on_other_artists

"The Big Friend" is cited as being by Sulamith Wülfing and identified as Sinfield's cover art on these webpages: http://artpassions.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/dragons-big-dangerous-and-sometimes-misunderstood/ http://diagnosednostalgia.tumblr.com/post/3192616381/sulamith-wulfing-the-big-friend http://loverforbooks.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/sulamith-wulfing.html http://www.songsouponsea.com/Promenade/Still.html http://theafterword.co.uk/content/reply-album-cover-you-love

Please correct the Description entry by including this information!

1956Firebird (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This is where I came in - Bee Gees

The Bee Gees are in the description of the album "this is where I came in" titled as an "English Rock Group". All Bee Gees are Australian Citizens, so that to my opion the right title is: "Australian Rock Group".

89.204.153.133 (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-free images on Nyles Lannon

Nyles Lannon currently uses 2 non-free images (covers of two albums), but I'm not sure that's justified by the article length/content. Opinions welcome at Talk:Nyles Lannon#Non-free images. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

DPRP.net as a review source

Is this website with reviews and music news about progressive rock reliable? I've seen its reviews used in articles like Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings (Bo Hansson album), but the site's contact and credits page shows "WordPress" as its publisher at the bottom. The site does have interviews and news stories, but the reviewers don't appear to be notable (from the credits page). Dan56 (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked for evidence that other reliable sources considered them reliable (the whole "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" thing), and couldn't find them mentioned by anyone already reliable. Most Google hits were social media links, blogs, or other also-questionable sites linking to DPRP. So at this point, unless someone provides some good evidence that they are indeed reliable, I'd say they don't meet the standards of being a reliable source. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Genre infobox discussion

There is a discussion involving changing genre rules in the infobox here that relates to WP:ALBUMS. If any users could chime in on it it would be very helpful. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Piero Scaruffi - Final Verdict on using him as a source in reviews

Looks like there's pretty clear consensus that Piero Scaruffi's album/music reviews are unusable as a source in any capacity. Thank you all for your participating this long running dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 22:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It looks like there is a long running dispute on whether or not he is a reliable source. It seems @Soul Crusher: and anonymous IPs have a long standing habit of adding (spamming?) his review scores onto review tables in reception sections.

There's a bunch of past discussions on this, and it seems like they vary from consensus against its use, to no consensus on what to do with it.

I'm tired of people wasting their time on this, so I'm looking for a final consensus on this. If there's consensus for it, then its allowed. If there is consensus against it, or no consensus either way, then it won't be useable.

Please include a clear Support or Oppose stance with a policy based reason. I will not weigh-in, I'm taking a neutral stance so I can make an uninvolved/unbiased judgment call for closing this. Please include your thoughts below: Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: His reviews are often little more than a couple of sentences (if that), and very little has been established of his notability/reliability (for example, he does not appear to be known for a "reputation of fact-checking and accuracy", per WP:RS). There are better sources out there for album reviews. If other, better sources cannot be found, that might be an indication that the article in question is not notable at all. Anyway, I agree with removing these reviews from all articles they have been added to. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't mind his reviews, but it goes against WP:SPS. Apparently some were published at one point, but it does not remain clear which ones were on his website. The english reviews on his site are fan translations source, which makes me feel uncomfortable about quoting him. I've heard he's read books about genre, music, etc. but they all seem to be self-published. So with fan-translations, self-published reviews, and nothing but a new york times article praising his cite, all I can say is he probably has notability as himself as a person on wikipedia, but we shouldn't include him in the infobox. For those who suggest that a critic that Robert Christgau doesn't offer much more review, I note that Christgau's work has been published in magazines and news articles. I agree with Scaruffi more than Chistgau on things but if we want to play by the rules, Scaruffi just doesn't cut it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't have anything against using Scaruffi in articles where no other reviews are available, but aggressively including him in every article like Soul Crusher does indeed reminds me of spamming.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Support: First of all, you should clarify what this consensus is about. You have linked to several pages concerning Scaruffi but have not set the parameters this discussion. How can an unbiased and rational discussion take place if its unclear what is supposed to be discussed. Is this merely concerning the restriction or inclusion of Piero Scaruffi's assigned rating to an album in the review table or is it concerning whether or not he should be included in the article at all, such as quotations within the prose of the article? You should be more clear.
I do not appreciate the remarks about me being a relative or some kind of lobbyist for Scaruffi. The critical review section of music articles has always been a primary focus of mine. I have added reviews from a plethora of different review sites (including Christgau) if I felt they contained information or critique useful to the reader, which I believe is the primary reason for the reviews presence in an article (to inform/enlighten).
Quoting criteria from WP:RS or WP:SPS as a basis for exclusion does not resolve the issue because these are guidelines, not contractual stipulations. The impact and influence of blogging and other internet sources cannot be ignored. This is the new format for the transmission of information and the direction that a thoughtful and thorough researcher must pursue. The assertion that "his reviews are often little more than a couple of sentences" is simply false, especially concerning critiques of newer albums (examples:Radiohead page, Kanye West, Dan Deacon). I also don't understand why you are using length of content as bases for an argument for Scaruffi's exclusion, as a as many of Christgau's reviews are terse or consist of one symbol (example: his many "dud" ratings).
There are many albums by significant musical acts that have little to no critical coverage (examples: Missing Foundation, Lubricated Goat). Even allmusic, which is fairly broad in scope, sometimes neglects records recorded by groups that never broke from their underground status. I would actually have no qualms with the idea of leaving his ratings off the review table, but instead opt that useful criticism be added to the reception section of the article. I will say that Scaruffi has written substantial critiques on many bands that don't receive much critical coverage and I believe these reviews can prove to be enlightening for the interested reader, especially if quoted within the prose of the article.--Soul Crusher (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Just because there is little information of a group doesn't mean you can use weak sources to expand on their articles. You have said the rules are guidelines, I'd disagree, they aren't essays, they are the standards we are supposed to follow. Just because there is some obscure group with little information, doesn't mean you can resort to poor quality sources like someone's personal website. If his reviews are fan-translated that doesn't show off his notes as a high quality per wiki standards. If you are upset in comparison to Christgau, I'd suggest just don't add a review that doesn't say much about the music. Just because you found a good review, if you can't get any useful information from it, you probably shouldn't use it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing misleading about it. It was purposely kept vague, in order to determine what capacity, if any, he should be used. We're going figure out an exact capacity of how much (if any) he can be used, so there's no gray area for anyone to misinterpret it one way or another. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Comparing Scaruffi, a non professional music writer, to a professional music writer like Christgau, is off topic and it is a non sense. Scaruffi was never asked to write an obituary in a famous paper, contrary to Christgau who did it recently for Lou Reed.1 If someone wants to talk about Christgau's ratings, the thing to do is to open another topic. Woovee (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NONENG, WP:SELFPUBLISH and non-professional review per Wikipedia:MOSALBUM#Critical reception. Also see my comments regarding blatant falsifications and misrepresentations in his writings at Talk:Revolver (Beatles album)#Recent edits by Liftmoduleinterface and Talk:Revolver (Beatles album)#Piero Scaruffi. Piriczki (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
It Depends on whether the reviews are listed in the table of professional reviews, or just mentioned in the actual text. The table is reserved for only professional reviewers, but the prose should allow for more variety in what types of criticism are allowed. While not a professional reviewer, Scaruffi is still an important cultural scholar - for instance, he's a visiting lecturer at Harvard and Stanford and is chairing an art and sciences expo at Berkeley [14]. So I would say that his opinion is worth mentioning in article prose, but that he shouldn't be listed in the actual table.--¿3family6 contribs 16:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per all our wiki rules: WP:album#critical reception and WP:SELFPUBLISH.
1) He's a non professional music writer: his reviews/biographies about music have never been printed in a music paper (like the village voice or Rolling Stone).
  • Our wiki critical reception says: Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs).
He doesn't meet the standards for inclusion for professional reviewers. He's a scientist at university that writes about music on his free time: comparing him to a professional critic is a non-sense.
2) His books are self-published on Iuniverse self publishing 1 and then on "Omniware",1,2, his own publishing compagny that only releases Scaruffi's books. Scaruffi's website says he's the president and founder. "Omniware Publishing House. 3
  • The wiki article about self-published sources says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
His music books have not been recognized by professionals of the publishing, and have never been cited in bibliographies at the end of books of famous music writers present on wiki. Scaruffi is a scientist who writes about music as a hobby in his spare time and who self publishes his books on Iuniverse self publishing and "omniware", 4. In 2006, 3 years after the release of his first book, he admitted he had only sold 1.500 copies worldwide. source 5. So, he can't make his living with this. BTW, the writer of the article, Dan morrell, only contributed 4 articles to this magazine between 2005 and 2006 according to the paper archives, 6.
3) According to wiki rules, the template for the rating for the articles shows this presentation: "Professional ratings, Review scores". He's not professional. Thus, normally only professional ratings should be included. According to our rules, his biography doesn't fit our wiki standard too. Indeed, WP:Bio#basic criteria says: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.. Scaruffi only had 2 sources for his work about music: they are mentionned on the Scaruffi article. 2 doesn't mean multiple to my point of view. I could point out this fact is: no a publisher or a Editor-in-chief in a newpaper has ever worked with him.
Woovee (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This is not true: his music reviews have never been published. Otherwise you would have supported sources. Woovee (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Do try to assume good faith and not be too aggressive on this - perhaps Walter has found one that you haven't? Or maybe he's confusing his non-music work. I know you don't seem to care much, but any follow up to this, @Walter Görlitz:? Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
It was discussed in one of the four discussions linked above. Feel free to read those and determine if I'm telling the truth or not. The main reason I don't care is that he doesn't follow the same music I do and so I've never had to deal with him being added as a source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
And this is what I get for scanning quickly. The published author were Christgau and Xgau not Scaruffi. I stand corrected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. - Per WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:album#critical reception, and WP:NOENG. Piriczki has it right, Scaruffi's reviews are not well-informed, well-sourced, or well-written. As far as I can tell he is a self-appointed master of genres, and not a source that we should use. Further, he covers so much territory that more than one Wikipedia editor has grow to rely on him to source dubious claims and genre-hair-splitting. We should not be encouraging our editors to utilize this is low-quality source, so please consider him an "author" to avoid. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per WP:SELFPUBLISH and the critical reception section of WP:MOSALBUM. He's not professional, or a well-established expert. He's actually a really poor reviewer of music compared to several others which we use, and so many of his "reviews" are one-liners with no critical justification for his marks or scores. A very poor source to use when there are many other, much better ones. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The reviews and even sections of his books that I have read are, to me, shallow to the point of being empty. Folks above have referred to him as a "low-quality source", I'm more comfortable with "no-quality source." Carptrash (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose . This has nothing to do with he quality of the writing, which I do find lacking. If he was a published music critic, that would be the final word on the subject, no matter how lousy his writing. However, the fact is, he is entirely self-published. He has never been seen as enough of an authority to ever be published by any publisher or music journal as a music critic. This is no different than a personal blog. That's all he does. He may be notable in other areas and I'm not arguing against there being an article in him. But as a source, he is of no value because he has never been published as a music critic. Including him, especially since there are plenty of usable sources and reviews out there, diminishes the impact of the other sources we use. If we allow this, we must then allow any and all personal blogs, self-published books and so on. There would be no argument against this since we're permitting it for his reviews, for some reason. I have removed him as a self-published source whenever I encounter him and have been told that there was a previous concensus on using him as a source for reviews only when no other sources are available. I still believe this is flawed -- what is to stop anyone else from putting in their own blog of reviews. If we allow him, we must allow everyone else. But since we have some clear rules against self-published sources already in place, this should be an easy fix. freshacconci talk to me 20:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC).

B-Class articles

Having had a few of my album articles uprated to B-class recently, I notice that unless the reviewer adds the parameters B1 to B6 and sets them all to yes, you end up with the confusing statements on the Album template on the talk page that "This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale" immediately followed by "This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status". Having looked at a sample of B-class album articles, it would appear that this is widespread. Is there any way of adjusting the template so that when an article has been rated B-class, the second of these statements is automatically removed, or failing that, are we allowed to set the B-class parameters to "yes" ourselves, so that it shows as having passed the assessment and removes the confusion? Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be set up like the WikiProject Songs scale, in that an assessment of "B-class" will still display as "C-class" if the criteria has not been checked. It is up to the person assessing the article that it has passed the requirements for B-class. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes I know the assessor decides whether the article passes or not - what I mean is even when it has been assessed and passed as B-class status, there appears to be no way of removing the previous notification that it has not yet been assessed, unless the B1 to B6 parameters are set to "yes", which in the case of many B-class articles has not been done. So can we go back and set these parameters ourselves, now that the articles have been assessed and passed as B-class status, otherwise it looks contradictory? To take one well-known album as an example, have a look at Talk:"Heroes" and tell me that it doesn't look ambiguous as to whether the album has passed B-class status or not. Richard3120 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Consequence of Sound's updated rating system

Consequence of Sound are now using letter grades to review albums. ???uest (talk • contribs) 09:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Liverpool Sound and Vision

Is the website "Liverpool Sound and Vision" a reliable source? One editor wants to use this review in the article ...And Justice for All. However, I've seen the same source used in a number of other album articles, such as The Journey, Bula Quo!, The Minutes, etc.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems questionable. I don't know that his website would pass WP:SPS. His About Me page mentions a few publications he has written for, and I might see it acceptable to use his work from some of those publications, but his own website mostly looks like a personal blog. That being said, SPS says that we can use SPS material by "an established expert on the subject matter". If someone can demonstrate that he is considered as such, then perhaps his site can be considered reliable. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The source's about: http://www.liverpoolsoundandvision.co.uk/about-me/ claims that he has "written reviews for the Birmingham Evening Mail, Liverpool Live, Chris High and the University of Liverpool’s L.S. Media web site". On the surface, that looks good, but www.birminghammail.co.uk/authors/ian-hall/ returns an error as does www.birminghammail.co.uk/authors/ian-d-hall/. Searching the site doesn't return any recent reviews. So how many reviews did he write for them and when were they written? http://liverpool-live.info/about-us doesn't really explain how material can be submitted or how it's vetted. A quick look at a few entries shows that writers don't seem to be valued. So the questions I'm left with are what does "written reviews" mean in this context? Does it mean that one review for each of the locations mentioned? Until more is known about this reviewer, I'd say avoid all content unless it's an interview, and then only use with caution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the "Recent Posts" (down in the right corner), it seems that all reviews on that website are written by the same author - Ian D Hall, which implies self-published work. It's true that Hall has written reviews for a couple of newspapers, but as MrMoustacheMM pointed, until it is proved that the author is a well-know expert in the music field, the text shouldn't be used in articles identified as good articles.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of English-language field in the infobox

Hi. Can someone take a look at the edits of TheDeviantPro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user is removing the English-language field from album infoboxes without any reason as to why. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well the template instructions say to avoid placing English as the language if it's an exclusively English-language album. I guess it's like why we don't put lang=English into our citations, because we're English language Wikipedia and it would seem unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Abbey Road - citations to chart positions needed

I started expanding this article, got carried away (as I have a tendency to do) and it's not far off being in a position to nominate to good article status in my view. The main thing that stops it being ready are the two [citation needed] flags in the chart statistics section. I've got no real reason to believe they're wrong, and they need to be there for completeness, but I don't have an offline source and have no idea what online sources are good. Can anyone help? I will now trout myself for putting my copy of Guinness book of British Hit Albums in a charity shop about ten years ago, which would have cited all or most of the facts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of the British Hit Singles/Albums books would have had lists of the best selling albums by year, just all time best sellers, I would think. The year-end copies of Record Retailer (now Music Week) list the best sellers by year, but from what I can find online, Record Retailer had Abbey Road down as the fourth biggest seller of 1969, and the sixth biggest seller of 1970. I haven't a clue how you can prove it was the first Beatles album to 10 million sales unless someone comes across the statistic in an old copy of Music Week or another music magazine. Good work on the article, by the way. Richard3120 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. BHA did have a complete list of what album was number one every week, so you could work out the duration it spent at number one from that. I've done a web search for the Record Retailer best sellers, but all I can find are unreliable sources. Do you have a link? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I have a copy of the last (19th) edition of British Hit Singles & Albums from 2006, so finding out the dates and weeks at no.1 is no problem if you need any confirmation, but I still don't think any of the older versions listed the biggest sellers by year - I remember older versions of British Hit Singles used to review the biggest sellers of the previous two years since the last edition of the book, but not for all years. The Wikipedia page List of best-selling albums of the 1960s in the United Kingdom would appear to confirm that Abbey Road was the fourth biggest seller of that decade, but I can't see any specific source for the information in that list. However, this link of an archived page http://web.archive.org/web/20071217020421/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/album_chart_history_1969.php says that Abbey Road was indeed 1969's biggest seller - as this was information from the Official Charts Company's own website in 2007, I think that would count as an official source for the citation, and if you can find the equivalent archived page for 1970 that might confirm your other assertion that it was the eighth best seller of that year too. If you are based in the UK the only place I can think of where you can check past copies of Record Retailer from 1969 and 1970 would be the British Library's archives at St Pancras in London - the only sources I found online are unreliable ones too! Richard3120 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46&oldid=1086823147"