Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55→Archive 60

Proposed addition to List of unreliable sources

The consensus is to add MetroLyrics to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#List of unreliable sources (with link to relevant discussion), which has been done. Cunard (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2016 (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.

Following the discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#MetroLyrics songwriters miscredits, an addition to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#List of unreliable sources (with link to relevant discussion) is proposed:

Any comments? If there are no objections, I'll add this to the list. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support – I think it's fine as an EL for linking the song's lyrics, but MetroLyrics should not be used as a reliable source of copyright information. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't MetroLyrics user-generated content that can be edited by anybody? I realise we are focusing here on songwriting credits rather than accuracy of lyrics, but I would guess if the lyrics can be altered by anyone, then so can the credits, so it doesn't pass RS. Richard3120 (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes and no. Supposedly, lyrics identified with the "LF" LyricFind logo are licensed and cannot be edited by users; the rest are user submissions. A quick look through their Top 10[1] showed two with the LF logo and eight without (odd for a site "boasting the most comprehensive database of legal lyrics in the world with over 1 Million titles"[2]). Since this isn't explained anywhere, I'm proposing to add it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Proposed addition to WP:SONG#LYRICS. —Ojorojo (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • 50/50 - If it can be edited by User's, and only some lyrics have this 'block' attached, then only the lyrics with the block would be acceptable additions under WP:RS, I would suggest anyway. It's the Credits, and the large amount of conjecture, that is the real issue (I've been following but only commenting now) we are trying to have confirmed, as I've had a few issue crop up on albums I monitor of late about this. Not saying this isn't useful information to asses though either.
Nürö G'däÿ 00:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Added to the list. Thanks for your interest. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2016 (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.

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 22:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

SignPost WikiProject Report

Hello! Would anyone in this WikiProject be interested in talking to me for a Signpost article? If so, please ping me! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Trouser Press

I believe Trouser Press, and its website, TrouserPress.com, is a notable source and should be included in the list of good sources. FamblyCat94 (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe that this has been answered recently. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 46#New Publications. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a whole lot of discussion on that source in particular in that link, unless you're referring to my own commentary there, which said that typically hard copy magazine's typically meet the requirements of a reliable source. As long as the website is of the same affiliation as the magazine, I'd wouldn't oppose its use. Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I thought Trouser Press already was considered a good source, but I would also support its inclusion – and the website is indeed the official online version of the original magazine. Richard3120 (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

A request was made here. Thanks. Dan56 (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Certification table entries for certain countries

I've posted here about my concerns that several of the template links originally used for various countries in the certification table no longer work – as the members of this project will use this template for their album articles I'd appreciate any thoughts and comments. Richard3120 (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: I've made an additional comment about another issue which has resulted from the above problem. Richard3120 (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Great Rock Discography

Does anyone have a copy of Martin C. Strong's The Great Rock Discography (2004)? I'd appreciate if someone could tell me what score is given to a few albums I've been writing articles on. Ping me if you respond here. Dan56 (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox album question

There is an open question at template talk:Infobox album#Studio parameter, take #2 that could use more input. Piriczki (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Suzanne Vega discography

Hi,

I'd like to update Template:Suzanne Vega and Suzanne Vega discography with a sane list of her recordings. Especially her live catalogue seems to be not clear - which recordings are important and why this one is marked as not notable enough for example? - kocio (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It's flagged for questionable notability because it doesn't have any proper references/sources – Discogs is user-generated content which can be edited by anybody and therefore doesn't qualify as a reliable source. If it had some good references – reviews of the album, or some background information about it, sourced from music magazines, etc. – then we could remove that tag. Richard3120 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up to participants of a discussion at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Mass_DiscoDogs. The basic question is when an article should contain a link to a connected Discogs page. My assumption was that it's fair game to add e.g. Template:Discogs artist to articles about artists, but I'm not seeing anything in e.g. this WikiProject's style guide supporting that. I don't actually have a strong opinion about this, but if you do you may want to participate there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Rhododendrites, the WikiProject actually did have a discussion on this recently, though it was held at a somewhat puzzling venue, so I'm not surprised you didn't find it. The RFC here, while more about it being used as a source, was basically having a consensus that it would be fair game for an EL. (Though still technically running too, FYI.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: While it's true I had not seen that thread, it doesn't actually provide an answer, as far as I can tell. :) As with imdb, "don't cite it, but it's fine in external links" is in line with my understanding. I don't have a strong opinion one way of the other -- they're both UGC and can easily be wrong, but both tend to provide a useful resource -- but I would want it to be consistent. Those at the ELN thread seem to be saying there has to be a discussion before adding that external link to any article, and/or that it's not appropriate to add it to some 20-40 pages at once. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I just meant it as a reference point, not as a full answer to your question. :) I'm in the same boat as you actually - I don't really have a strong opinion either. A number of different subject areas seems to have similar situations of "its USERG so don't cite it, but its fine as an EL" - Albums has Discogs, video games has MobyGames, film has IMDB. I feel strongly about not using them as a source, but I rarely add ELs to articles to begin with, so it only effects me in that I see people arguing over it occasionally on my watchlist. But you make a good point - there could be that issue of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should". Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Song review

I would appreciate input on a discussion at Talk:Blink of an Eye (Tori Kelly song).

One editor says PopCrush is not reliable. The other says it's the author, not the website, to whom reliability applies.

Thanks in advance. —ATS 🖖 Talk 18:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

PopCrush has been disputed as a reliable source a number of times before. With that said though, if you can find an author there who has been known to work on other reliable publications, then those kinds of articles at PopCrush should be usable, whether or not the site is generally reliable, per WP:SPS. Kokoro20 (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Kokoro20. May I move your comment to the article talk? —ATS 🖖 Talk 03:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
There's really no need. Just link them to this thread. Kokoro20 (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC at NCM

FYI, I requested for comments at WT:NCM about the current wording of WP:ALBUMDAB. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 21:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Collapsible lists in Template:Infobox album

Hi all, I don't have much experience gnoming in the world of album articles and TheAmazingPeanuts asked me a question that I do not know the answer to:

  1. In the infobox at Rodeo, Views, Jeffery and some others, a collapsible list is being used in the |producer= parameter. Rodeo, for example, has 27 producers listed. I don't see anything at Template:Infobox album that would explicitly prevent the inclusion of a collapsible list, but I also know that some WikiProjects (Film, Television...) tend to discourage these ponderous lists. Anybody have an idea what the community preference is on this? If they're cool, would any of you consider adding that to the template instructions so it's clear to other editors?
  2. Related: I happened to notice at Rodeo that a collapsible list is being used in the track listings under "Deluxe edition (bonus tracks)". Is that a normal usage of the collapse switch?

If any of you would be kind enough to answer, would you mind pinging TheAmazingPeanuts as well, please? Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:, @TheAmazingPeanuts: The talk for album infobox has discussed the first issue several times. If there are more than a few (and "few" is my wording here, and the quantity has never been clearly defined) producers are listed in the infobox, it's distracting. It has become regular practice in pop and hip-hop albums to a) list almost everyone involved in the recording as a producer and b) to employ different "producers" on every track. The field was designed to summarize the people most responsible for producing the album. If that does not hold for any album, the parameter does not need to be completed or filled-out. At worst, you could include a node that it was multiple producers and to see the track listing. As per MOS:DONTHIDE, I would argue that it's completely wrong to use a collapsible list. I believe that has also been discussed on the talk page for the infobox.
The use of collapsible lists for bonus track lists appears to be an exception. That was discussed on that template's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Infoboxes are supposed to "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." (see MOS:INFOBOX) If the field is so detailed that it needs to be collapsed or hidden, then it clearly does not belong in the infobox. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz:, @Ojorojo: So you two are saying that a collapsible list should have be removed out of the infobox? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
It's my understanding that collapsible lists have no place in any infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: So the best idea is to removed these collapsible lists from these articles I was referring to earlier. Because I believe they should not stay in these articles if the guidelines say so. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
If you're interacting with another editor, have they buy-in and enter this discussion. If that does not work, then yes, I would say it's inappropriate to have the collapsed information in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Well there is this user goes by the name of Xboxmanwar, who keeps adding these collapsible lists in to these articles. This user has a history getting in trouble with other users and getting himself blocked several times before, and I don't wanna getting myself in a edit war because of him. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
@Xboxmanwar: You should probably be aware of this conversation and offer your opinions on the issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: @TheAmazingPeanuts: My thought is that if the infobox has a lot of information, it may clutter the article, with is why I put collapsible lists the organize them. Xboxmanwar (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no way to clutter the article. Making your changes violates other guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: With articles like The Life of Pablo which are full of information, especially the infobox in that article, can get in the way of things. Xboxmanwar (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Xboxmanwar: How do you interpret MOS:DONTHIDE? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Producers and Studio Locations aren't "spoilers" as defined by that article, therefore it doesn't apply. Xboxmanwar (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Xboxmanwar: Still, that's no way to hide anything in the infobox. This is against Wikipedia's guidelines. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
"Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, tables or lists of article content". I'm not sure where you see spoilers. Now there is an allowance for collapsible sections, but this isn't a section we're addressing, it's a summary of information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Should we make a proposal about these collapsible lists being added to the infobox? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that it would be a good idea, yes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: So when do you want to do it? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Collapsibility We simply shouldn't have collapsing anything unless strictly necessary as it is difficult for many users to interact with the page. Accessibility is a priority. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Koavf: I agreed, we I don't have to collapsing anything, only if necessary. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd argue that if you need to collapse a list in the infobox for reasons of accessibility, readability, to keep the infobox to a reasonable size or any other reason, then it probably shouldn't be in the infobox in the first place. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: How that a manual of style while Wikipedia's guidelines didn't even say we should add a collapsible list in the infobox. If you're gonna hide anything, why should the whole producer list should even been there in the first place? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well that's what the whole discussion is here, that a field which elongates the infobox too much, do we even require it at all? So stick to it while discussion goes on and don't remove it until consensus is achieved. —IB [ Poke ] 12:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@IndianBio: I won't remove it, but I still don't agreed to add a collapsible list there. Since when we added these collapsible lists in the infobox while the guidelines doesn't say so? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The guideline is here to guide us regarding adding content in certain fields. It does not elaborate or affirm whether the said field is actually beneficial or not? For example, we do not have the writer field in the template anymore. Why? Because all albums nowadays have multiple writers. Now the producers field is also getting into the same area where so many producers are being listed that its elongating the infobox into one very long box going into the article prose and breaking sections. A collapsible list certainly eradicates that and keeps the article in place. —IB [ Poke ] 13:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@IndianBio: I still don't support these collapsible lists being in the infobox, but whatever, everybody has their own opinions. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Including "Cover versions" in infobox song

A discussion about including cover versions in song infoboxes has been started at Template talk:Infobox song#"Cover versions" parameters in infobox song. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC To get more input, an RfC has been opened at WT:SONG#RfC: Should "Cover versions"/"alt Artists" be removed from Infobox songs? Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Image of rating at The Times website

Does anyone have a subscription to thetimes.co.uk? Or at least an internet browser that will load the image atop the review at this link? It's likely some star rating, but the image won't load on any browser I've tried, showing only a white X in a small black box (IE, Firefox, no luck). Dan56 (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dan56: No, but the URI is "http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00136/rating_stars_4_136526a.gif" which makes me think it is for stars. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course! The image has a url. Brilliant, thanks! Dan56 (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dan56: Not sure how tech-savvy you are, so please forgive me if I seem pedantic but if you open the page http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/music/albumreviews/article2421327.ece in your browser, you can view the source, usually with some button combination like Ctrl/Cmd+U. Look through the HTML and just before the text of the review (which begins with "Alumni..."), you can find the URI for this image which is supposed to display but, as you rightly point out, does not and furthermore redirects you to their homepage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It once did display four out of five stars; I ran the link through Wayback Machine ([3]) Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning publication years of novels when discussing works based upon them

Hi. We need input from WikiProject Albums members at Talk:Ride_the_Lightning#For_Whom_the_Bell_Tolls.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of singles in infobox

On the EVOLution article, Anonpediann and an IP editor from Israel using multiple IPs insist on removing the four singles after "On Purpose" from the infobox, because they are "not official" or "promotional" singles. To me, Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles seems to make it clear that they should be included: "The {{Singles}} template may be used as a miscellaneous addition to the infobox providing concise information about songs on the album that were released as singles during the marketing and promotion of the album." Anonpediann said that the documentation mentions the ambiguity about the promotional nature of the singles, but if anything, that seems to reinforce that these singles should be included as they clearly fit the definition. I also mentioned that "All We Have Is Love" was also released as a separate single on iTunes, I don't know what better proof there would be for a single being "official". nyuszika7h (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The wording should be tightened-up to reflect radio releases and promotional singles. In the age of iTunes, when any song can be released and sold as a stand-alone recording, we have to be clear what it means to release a single. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
In case it's not clear, I don't think they should be included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Walter Görlitz. Is it enough for you, Nyuszika7H? Anonpediann (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Live Grape album recording location is not correct

This is regarding the article about the album "Live Grape" by former members of the band Moby Grape. The article states that the recordings were done at several clubs in the Santa Cruz California area. That is incorrect. I was there for much of the recordings. And I have the original vinyl album and cover. It says right on the back of the cover, that the recording was done at the Shady Grove in the Haight Ashbury in San Francisco CA and at the Inn Of The Beginning in Cotati CA. I was one of three partners of Shady Grove. The band played there many times from May 1976 - late 1978. The recording was done by Sonoma Recording. There were ten nights of recording, six at Shady Grove and four at The Inn Of The Beginning. I joined Wikipedia just so I could correct this article. I did so, but didn't have a way to verify it, so my edit was undone. Well, the album cover is the evidence. Could somebody more savvy with Wikipedia fix it? Is there a way I can post a photo of the album cover back? Or could I email a photo to someone that knows how to use Wikipedia?

Sailrick (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to post a photo of the back of the album cover – we can see on Discogs for example a picture of the sleeve, which confirms you are correct. The problem is the AllMusic review which incorrectly states that the album was recorded in Santa Cruz. I'll try and change it again, but this time I'll use a reference to the sleeve notes, which should hopefully convince the other editor. Richard3120 (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Featured article candidate – Aries (album)

I have nominated Aries (album) as a featured article candidate and am requesting feedback. The FAC can be found here. Erick (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I gave it a quick skim through, and the only issue I had was the minor change I made that you "thanked" me for. Looks good. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I changed the sentence in the lead to also simply "mixed" to reflect on the edit that you made on the body. Erick (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Genre use in opening sentence of a band/musician article

I am looking for further input at the RFC located here. (Please note that its not about genre-warring itself, but more of a general WP:MOS issue.) Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 01:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is another RFC, on a more specific issue regarding this. Any input would be welcome. It is located here. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

UK album chart positions

For lots of album articles the UK chart position info refers to the www.chartstats.com website, which for legal reasons is no longer on-line, effectively making all these links "dead links". All these references will therefore have to be replaced by references to the appropriate entry on the UK Official Charts website, section Archives here. I am not up to that task, maybe someone out there is ? Regards and good luck. 81.82.165.17 (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I know – I change them whenver I come across them, but the problem is hunting down every article that has a chartstats link on it... this is where a bot would come in handy. Richard3120 (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Hunting them down is actually quite easy: just enter "chartstats" in the search field on the top right of the page, and you will be presented with a rather discouragingly long list. Regards. 94.226.151.144 (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I didn't realise you could do that. Describing it as "discouragingly long" isn't a great incentive though... ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Genre dispute

Hello. I'm wondering if you could solve this problem:

I found in a review of Joanne at AllMusic an admin saying about it "Gaga's feet remain firmly planted in dance-pop even when she brings in Father John Misty, Beck, Florence Welch, and Josh Homme of Queens of the Stone Age for collaborations." I think we can cleary see that the journalist is labeling the album as dance-pop.[1] Anyway, an admin says it's original research and that i made my own assertion about it. What do you think?

Thanks. Anonpediann (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a safe interpretation to me. I don't know a different way to take it. The subject of the review is the album, right? What else could the writer possibly be referring to? Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
But nowhere in the review does the journalist use the term "dance-pop". Therefore it's original research – WP:OR states that this includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". And "dance-pop" isn't stated by the source, it's Anonpediann's interpretation. Richard3120 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't follow. The reviewer directly uses the term "dance-pop". The direct quote above is faithfully transcribed from the review itself. It's not quite as literal as "This album is dance-pop" but its rather apparent that's the meaning of the sentence. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Sergecross73 and Anonpediann, my error entirely, I didn't see that. This is why I avoid genre disputes... Richard3120 (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Its no problem. I didn't see it at first either, since its in the middle of a long review, and the quote above starts mid-sentence. Also, a large portion of Wikipedia's genre fights are a result of sources not being used, so its not a crazy assumption to jump to... Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you guys! Anonpediann (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.allmusic.com/album/joanne-mw0002982993

AnyDecentMusic?

What is the community's thought on this website? —IB [ Poke ] 08:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: What your problem with it. In this discussion, the |ADM= parameter for AnyDecentMusic? was added by Mr. Stradivarius, who is one of the administrators. And just like Metacritic, the guidelines doesn't say do not add it in the template. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@TheAmazingPeanuts: my problem is not with adding it to the template. We as a community should assess the changes we are adding to hugely visible templates like this and I don't see any discussion on the AnyDecentMusic? or usefulness of the webmsite. Metacritic is widely used across the encyclopedia and if we want ADM to be used, I believe we should discuss its benefits, not just add it based on a single user's whim. —IB [ Poke ] 09:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@IndianBio: Are you saying that we should make another proposal on it? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes I think we should TAP. So that the usage of ADM is not challenged and we can also note in the album ratings template that the community signed up for including ADM also along with MC. —IB [ Poke ] 09:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@IndianBio: That probably be a good idea to let other good editors to know what's going on. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you think we should raise a RFC or go to WP:RSN? —IB [ Poke ] 10:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@IndianBio: Well it could be at Template:Album ratings talk page or at AnyDecentMusic? talk page, because it is about the website. I let you decide to where you're want it at. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd recommend another RFC, as its reliability will only be half the discussion. (The other half being to the capacity of "Do we need a second aggregator?" And "Does it provide any new insight that Metacritic doesn't?" Here is probably where it's get the most traffic/input. Sergecross73 msg me 11:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Sergecross73 - Any Decent Music has been around for several years now and I don't think its reliability is in question. What we have to consider is that both ADM and Metacritic are aggregating reviews from the same sources much of the time, so their overall scores are never going to be wildly different, and therefore is there any value in including both. MC tends to include more US newspaper reviews, ADM tends to include more online music websites such as Clash and The Line of Best Fit - I guess it's going to come down to which set of sources editors see as more reliable. Richard3120 (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
That is helpful to know that they pull from some different areas though. I know one of the reasons WP:VG eliminated their standard use of Game Rankings was because it almost always had pretty much the same aggregate score, so they kicked out GR because Metacritic is commonly seen as the industry standard, and more widely cited as a relevant measure. Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@Richard3120:, they're never using the exact same sources most of the time for the albums they have entries for. ADM always includes sources from the UK/Ireland and Australia that MC doesn't, some of which are very notable IMO (The Irish Times, Financial Times, State, Time Out (London), entertainment.ie, Digital Spy, The Scotsman, London Evening Standard, The Arts Desk, Sydney Morning Herald). More importantly, the point of including a second aggregate was for balance, rather than highlighting one point of view. Another overlooked point is that for many non-American English-language acts, ADM may have more comprehensive entries for their releases than MC (ex. Two Vines: ADM vs. MC). Metacritic is also not infallible, occasionally assigning the wrong score or rounding up or down reviews from magazines which give only whole star scores rather than halfs (Q, Mojo) when the written review rings more favorable or negative than the given score; which is a reminder of how these sites work, different interpretations of non-score reviews by (human) editors of different aggregate sites, creating a greater need for more than one perspective/source. Dan56 (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
It should definitely be discussed first, yes. I'd not heard of the site before, but the more I've looked into it, I'm not convinced ADM carries much weight at all – in which case, why would we consider giving their ratings so much coverage on Wikipedia? From a google search, I checked the first 10 pages and got one hit that supports ADM's existence outside the context of their list(s) of best Scottish albums. So, ignorant as I am about the site, I went to our AnyDecentMusic? article to learn something.
Until a few days ago, the article carried a banner citing multiple issues (primary sources and notability), and I think both those concerns still apply. The article was started by user:Aptw, whose presence on Wikipedia, judging by their contributions, has been solely to expand that page and increase ADM's presence on other pages such as album articles. As stated in the AnyDecentMusic? article, btw, the directors of the newspaper and magazine design consultancy that runs ADM (PalmerWatson) are Ally Palmer and Terry Watson … Meaning, one is tempted to add a third concern to the banner: conflict of interest. (I notice Aptw got into a spot of trouble with the site's logo when they uploaded it with the statement "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy …") [update: I have just reinstated the banner after all: [4].]
All in all – and again I stress my total ignorance about the existence of ADM until two or three days ago – I'm seeing nothing via google that suggests the site's ratings are worthy of inclusion in the ratings box as if they're comparable in influence and notability with Metacritic's. And I'm seeing a Wikipedia article that appears to have been cobbled together by ADM staff, and even then, with what few secondary sources there are, it mostly parrots what Ally Palmer and Terry Watson say the site achieves.
@IndianBio: In one of the album articles where the ADM rating was recently added, I saw you comment on the unworthiness of the site. Do you have something to add to what I'm saying here? On the other hand, @Richard3120: You obviously know the site quite well and appear to accept it as a reliable source, so maybe I'm missing something? JG66 (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The site's been mentioned in a number of third-party news sources as a gauge on critical consensus (The Independent, BBC, The Guardian, IB Times, entertainment.ie); you'll have better luck finding hits that supports ADM's existence using GoogleNews. Unsurprisingly, these mostly come from sources outside the U.S. which goes back to my previous comment regarding its usefulness (please read). Also, it's great IndianBio is taking such an active role in reverting any and all additions of the score from articles on their watchlist, but saying they're doing so in the interests of the WP:ALBUMS community doesn't mean it's representative of the community; the burden is on you, and since you started the discussion here, it's as much your personal preference not to have it as it was my personal preference to include it. It currently exists as a parameter, it's not harming articles, there's no reason to revert Jennica or TheAmazingPeanuts's edits (or mine), etc. edits which show several editors from WP:ALBUMS do support its inclusion. Dan56 (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dan56: I still think a proposal is necessary. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I had proposed it at the template ratings talk page, mentioned this proposal in an above discussion on this project talk page, and only the editor who redesigned the template to support the aggregate--@Mr. Stradivarius:--responded; it received no other attention at the time. Dan56 (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dan56: Well the best thing you can do is, go to other editors talk page and ask them they willing to weigh in on the proposal, that what I did before. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dan56: I have just place an RfC tag, and adding a subsection for votes. Now let's see what others think of it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah this personal preference of adding this webzine is not accepted. Unless consensus is achieved through the RFC (thanks TAP) this should not have been added to the template. I'm surprised that Mr. Stradivarius even accepted this. —IB [ Poke ] 07:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@JG66: good that you reminded me, I definitely noted in one of the Madonna albums that they added a personal number to a review where it was not present. Granted that source was not used in Metacritic so I cannot assert what Metacritic would have done. But that kinda ticked me off regarding its usage. —IB [ Poke ] 07:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Nope, personal preference of removing previously uncontested parameter is not accepted. Unless consensus is achieved through RfC, this should not be removed. I'm surprised IndianBio is playing dumb regarding the assignment of scores to non-score review, which Metacritic does also. For what it's also worth, at some of the articles IndianBio enforced his personal preference recently, it was contested by three members of WP:ALBUMS ([5], [6]), who added the ADM field. The edits seem to be speaking for themselves, and I am not opposed to an RfC. Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

English-language compilation albums

I suggest this category be split into greatest hits type compilations by a single artist; and various artists compilations. A P Monblat (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC

I would appreciate any participation in the RfC located here, regarding whether Nightride should be labelled as a mixtape or album. TheKaphox T 22:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Nightride credits

Hello, i want to know if in a release that doesn't has revealed credits it serves the confirmation in Twitter by the producer. Anonpediann (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Genius as a reliable source

Genius can be edited by anyone. It can be considered a reliable source for credits?Anonpediann (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Anonpediann: Genius is not a reliable source, no. Open-edit wikis almost certainly will not be (altho wikis like Scholarpedia are!) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Koavf: Just so you are aware, the user's question is a direct response to a separate talk page discussion at Talk:Nightride. Thanks. TheKaphox T 20:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

How does one verify a claimed chart position?

I'm looking at Fours Deuces & Trays . Neither of the cited sources verifies that it charted. Where can that be looked up? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

If they're US-based, you can look it up at Billboard (magazine)'s website. AllMusic usually tracks that sort of stuff too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks; I can't find it on the Billboard site, but here it is on AllMusic; however, I see nothing there about its having charted (and 74th in its class seems very low for a stand-alone article anyway). I'm inclined to redirect it to the artist, G-Slimm; any opinions from project members? (Very obviously not one of my fields; I found copyvio in two articles created by the same editor, so I'm checking the rest of them for problems and fixing what I can.) Yngvadottir (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, AllMusic used to track chart positions, but now I'm not finding them. I've checked a few albums that definitely charted, and its not showing up, and its not even showing up when I looked up a chart position I personally cited to it in past, but checking it now, its just going to their AllMusic Bio. Perhaps AllMusic stopped doing this? I wonder if anyone else has noticed this? Or if I'm missing something? Anyways, I don't oppose redirecting. I think it'd be better than outright deletion. Like many 90s albums, the sourcing may be out there, but be locked away in print magazines few have access to. We don't need an article now, with so little content, but at least that way someone to spin it back out into an article faster were they to find more sources. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I've boldly redirected it, hopefully with a clear enough edit summary that it will be obvious to anyone who comes along with suitable sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Sergecross73: you are correct, I've just checked the links of articles I've edited in the past with the AllMusic link to chart positions, and now they just go to a search page... well, that's annoying, there might be more than a few articles that will need altering as a result. Richard3120 (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
At least this album did make it to the national charts (p. 114) but I haven't yet found the peak position. De728631 (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't actually say that - it says it CAN stand alongside other albums in the national chart, it doesn't say it DID. Richard3120 (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, seems like I misread this. De728631 (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

That's too bad that Allmusic no longer tracks that, though it's info could usually be found just fine at billboard or the respective chart's websites. It was just more convenient to use AllMusic since I was frequently already referencing it for other parts of the album. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Can confirm, Allmusic no longer has Billboard charts on their website (Source). While most of the Billboard charts can be found on Billboard's website, there are some that only Allmusic like Tropical Songs before 2009. This is troubling for me because I had to depend on Allmusic for these charts since Billboard messed it up. Erick (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@Magiciandude: I assume these specialist charts can still accessed through the print versions of Billboard which can be found here... I appreciate that going through each issue one by one to find the week in which the song peaked is far more time-consuming, though. Richard3120 (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know where there is a deletion sorting list for this project or for rap music, but I've nominated the article for deletion. Could anyone who sees this and who does know relevant deletion sorting lists it to should be added to please do that? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done I've added it to a couple of delsort lists – other editors may add more. Richard3120 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Albums editing.

No information is given about the Rwake 1998 demo, re-released 2004 album by House of Mummble. Can more be added to the existing page? Hallow88 (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Unlikely, because I can't find any record of that name even on the band's own web page... and now that you have brought them up, I can't see any way that the band or their records pass notability, and they are likely to all be put up for deletion. Richard3120 (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Does it matter if I have the album, with a unique track listing. Would it still need a source of its existence? Hallow88 (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's the problem with all of the articles relating to the band and their records – they need independent, reliable sources to verify their notability... see WP:V for general information about reliable sources, and WP:NBAND and WP:NALBUMS for specific criteria regarding notability for bands and their albums. Confirmation of existence and of track listings on Amazon, iTunes, Discogs, etc. isn't enough, and most blogs on the web don't meet Wikipedia criteria for reliability. What's needed is reviews and interviews from established, recognised metal magazines in print or online form. Richard3120 (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
http://www.metal.de/reviews/rwake-xenoglossalgia-the-last-stage-of-awareness-60192/
http://www.metalinjection.net/upcoming-releases/rwake-xenoglossalgia-demo-announced
These articles speak of the 2004 House of Mummble re-release. Hallow88 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The question is whether those two websites are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Richard3120 (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea, can anyone else say if they are reliable sources? It is almost a 20 year old demo, how would there be a more reliable source written in the past, these articles might be all there is. Hallow88 (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Rwake-Hell is the door to the sun album page. If the reissued version of this album info was added to the page, how can it be determined if the album cover photo is able to be shown?Hallow88 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Evanescence - Origin - demo

Have a version of Origin that appears to be a demo, not released by Bigwig Enterprsies only manufactured & distributed. The recording of the songs is somewhat different and are in mono but encoded with stereo playback. Have the released version of Origin by Bigwig Enterprises but it does not have mono playback only stereo and the track times are different. If this information was added to the album page, what kind of reference would it need? Hallow88 (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hallow88: Sources need to be verifiable and reliable. Any claim made in an article here should be either common knowledge or sourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Officially released album containing a track from Origin and dated 1999, and also saying its from the forthcoming independent release. Can this be a reliable source? Hallow88 (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hallow88: But what is the source? The album itself? If so, then every album would be notable simply because it exists. We need third-party sources that discuss the album. Do you know of any? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
This sounds like a promotional record, maybe a preliminary mix or maybe to be sent out to radio stations ahead of release... bit it doesn't sound like an official release available for purchase so it probably shouldn't be mentioned. Richard3120 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
These are official albums, one even has a magazine with it. Do official albums need to be sourced that they exist and what they contain? Hallow88 (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
No, these are not official Evanescence albums that he's referring to, but compilation CDs...one released by a private company, probably without authorization, the other released by an extremely minor magazine, possibly with authorization. Neither is notable enough for inclusions. I've already reverted the edit. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain how they are not official? Look official to me, they even have IFPI codes. Yes, they are compilation cds but released with authorization. Please explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallow88 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The references for Listen To The Rain shows nothing about this song, where is that information coming from and if it was cut from Eternal and Demise then how does the references show it exists at all? This version that is shown on Wikipedia has no piano and rain part, what is that part then?Hallow88 (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I see no point in removing [citation needed], until a source is added.Hallow88 (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

ORIGIN Cover - Noticed when looking at the details of the album cover it says it believed to be credited to Bigwig Enterprises, or the graphic artists. Album shows - (cover photo by Rocky Gray) - seems strange. This information is not on the article page.

Can anyone explain how this is correct or wrong?Hallow88 (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean File:Origin (Evanescence album cover).jpg? It's because when adding information for the image to be used on Wikipedia under non-free content regulations, there's a template wizard that some people use which has standard wording, so it just imports that wording directly. Richard3120 (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This is definitely an unofficial release, because the band is making a big deal about them releasing it for the first time in an official capacity in their upcoming box set release. Not really sure what you're asking with your other questions... Sergecross73 msg me 01:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

This being an officially announced unofficial release, then the only way to say the information is correct would be based on the playback format and track times (officially sourced), unless the band announces the exact true demo information. Being unofficial, nothing has backing up to the correct release.Hallow88 (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The box set with it comes out on Dec 9th. Perhaps this, and the sources that will surely come after it, will help with your questions? Sergecross73 msg me 04:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the way that would answer all questionsHallow88 (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Do promo recordings belong in infobox chronologies?

If a recording was released only as a promo, should it be linked in sequence with the commercial releases in a band's chronology in the infobox?

Case in point: "Band" = The Firesign Theatre

Prior chronology link:

Not Insane or Anything You Want To (1972) -> A Firesign Chat With Papoon (1972 promo) -> The Tale of the Giant Rat of Sumatra (1974)

I removed the Papoon promo from the chain, directly linking Giant Rat to Not Insane. What is the consensus? Does it make sense to include a group's promo discs in the chronology? (I don't think so.) Logically, that would mean you would have to include every one. (E.g. Every Beatles promo?) As I understand it, most promos must go largely without public notice since they're not commercially released. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Promos, demos, and other specialty issues often have limited releases and normally warrant separate sections in an artist's discography. They usually are not independently notable and to mix them in with an artist's main catalogue may confuse readers with relatively unknown releases and breaks in the chronological chain. Also, why are extra chronologies added for solo projects? Only chronologies for releases credited to the artist or group should appear in an infobox. For groups with several members who actively record solo projects, infoboxes would become bloated with too much extraneous information: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance ... wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." (WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I was going to ask about the solo chronologies on the template talk page; I wondered if I was making valid use of extra chronology (not familiar with "split albums"). The Firesign Theatre is a special case, because they went back and forth between group and solo albums a couple of times. I think it's important to keep the solo albums in chain; the solo albums (commercial releases) are just as notable as the group albums. Would you be OK with just a single chain, linking Not Insane to TV or Not TV, to How Time Flys, to Roller Maidens From Outer Space, then back to Everything You Know Is Wrong? That would certainly be less complicated than trying to figure out how two chronologies branch and merge back. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
If I remember correctly (it's been a long time), several of the albums had their own character and weren't just the Firesign Theatre under a different name. They maybe related, but are not known or perceived as the same group or artist. Mixing different entities together in a single timeline could be problematic and of little benefit. How important are these interwoven chronologies for an infobox (as opposed to a navbox)? It doesn't really tell the reader about the article they are reading, just how to get somewhere else. Maybe this can be presented differently. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I would say no – if it isn't an official commercial release, it should only be mentioned in the discography under promotional recordings, as Ojorojo says. I can't see how many promo records would pass notability to have their own article: by their nature they're not going to be reviewed in the music press or widely discussed in third-party articles. Richard3120 (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding "Studio" and "Venue" parameters to Infobox Single and Song

There is a current discussion regarding the addition of |Studio = and |Venue = parameters to Template:Infobox single and Template:Infobox song. This would bring them into line with the current Template:Infobox album usage. Please add your comments at Template talk:Infobox single#"Studio" addition. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota

Hello all,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

If you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us, please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Thank you, Bowen Bobo.03 (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Quotation issues at Public Image: First Issue

Too many quotes are used. They should be paraphrased or something. I couldn't raise the issue at the nearly neglected talk page. --George Ho (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: nearly all the Public Image album articles were written like this, as a collection of quotes, often unreferenced. The article for Metal Box has been improved immeasurably over the last year, but that's probably because it's now considered a key album of the era and there is a lot of information available about its recording, whereas First Issue hasn't received the same acclaim over time. Richard3120 (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
In other words, either we tolerate the over-quoting (discouraged by MOS:QUOTE) in those articles per WP:GUIDES, or we need someone else do the cleanup. --George Ho (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I would do it, but I have other priorities at the moment. Richard3120 (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Metacritic

It's is okay to add Metacritic score both in the album ratings template, and in the critical reception section? It is told it's gratuitous but I think it's better for an "at a glance" point of view. I ask this because the guidelines has never said do not add Metacritic in both sections at the same article. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Votes
@Dan56: If we had an |ADM= parameter for AnyDecentMusic? and added in the template, you won't make a big deal about Metacritic being the only thing added in the album ratings template. I accepted it if the website have a source for these albums. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Yepp. And the parameter will be created soon. Dan56 (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dan56: Good, just let me know when this been created. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: How do you think AnyDecentMusic? should be added to the album rating template? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, as I commented on that other RfC (can't remember where), the Metacritic score does seem to provide a nice overview of overall ratings and as such is very useful for readers. I don't see why it should be censored. As Cornerstonepicker aptly said above: "the infobox summarizes, the text explains." FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@FoCuSandLeArN: Do you mean this RfC? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
@TheAmazingPeanuts: I definitely think it's fine. In fact, I prefer starting off reviews sections with text like, "Review aggregator site Metacritic has assigned the album a score of [X]/100 indicating '[y]'." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. At WP:VG, we encourage editors to use Metacritic's summary of a game's reception when there's arguments between editors on how it should be summarized. For example, if one editor says it should be "critical acclaim", and another argues "Mixed reception", we often go to the MC score as a "compromise". Something to the capacity of "Review aggregator site Metacritic assigned the (product) a (x)/100 score, indicating "generally positive reception". Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Koavf: @Sergecross73: But when user Jennica add Metacritic in the album template, she keep on getting reverted by an other user Dan56, he said it should not belong there. This is why I ask this question because I've like to hear other people opinions about this topic. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, the usual approach to single review implementation is, if a review box is being used, then the review score doesn't need to be part of the prose. For example:
Without a review box: "Allmusic gave the album a 3 out of 5 review, praising it for having a good sound."
With a review box: "Allmusic praised the album for having a good sound."
Perhaps Dan56 was thinking more along this sort of reasoning? Aggregators like MC are a little different though, as in, its hard add meaningful content from it without mentioning the aggregate score in some capacity. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: He probably view it like that. When I added a review in the critical reception section, I don't post the score, I've just post the review without the score mentioned because it already in the album rating box. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
What exactly is the aim of this discussion? Dan56 (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
It appeared to be asking whether or not it's acceptable to mention MC scores in both prose and review tables at the same time, which the correct answer is "yes". Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. It's not inherently wrong or bad, but it's somewhat in poor taste and judgment. It's not something I'd do at articles I significantly contribute to, that's for sure. Dan56 (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
But @Dan56: other users like @SubSeven: and @Binksternet: have also agreed that it's okay. I respect you as a editor, but I don't agree why should Metacritic be removed off the album rating template. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I could at least understand an argument related to it being "redundant", but how would it be "in poor taste"? Sergecross73 msg me 02:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I imagine this discussion has originated from the current RfC at Talk:Nothing Was the Same (?). I think in many cases, particularly for reissues of albums with a generous amount of bonus material, it's wrong to include the Metacritic score in the ratings box. Admittedly, I pretty much only work on music articles about artists/songs/albums from the 1960s and '70s, and even then, within a very narrow scope of artists. But I've found that many albums (say, by Led Zeppelin, Paul McCartney) get the lavish reissue treatment, with a bonus disc of outtakes and other rare/unreleased material, often a DVD; so, in the Metacritic era, the album is then rated according to the new, repackage content, rather than as the work released perhaps 40 or 50 years beforehand. In some cases – Classic Rock magazine's treatment of the recent reissues of Led Zep's catalogue comes to mind – a reviewer will give separate scores for the original work and the bonus material, but the demarcation is pretty rare. And going back to McCartney: I've read modern-day reviewers actually say that, while the original album remains so-so, the repackager's generosity bumps up the album's artistic worth, as reflected in the publication's rating.
Also, albums of this vintage have received no end of reviewers' ratings over a period of decades. So, including the Metacritic score for a recent repackaged/deluxe version with all the trimmings can often misrepresent the situation with regard to the album's retrospective standing.
Another thing: when it comes to other "heritage artists" (not my term) whose reissued catalogue doesn't quite merit the same attention as Led Zep, the Stones, McCartney et al., I've noticed that Metacritic might only focus on seven reviews, making some puzzling choices when it comes to ignoring publications that otherwise are regularly included in the MC score. In some cases, particularly when one or two of the seven reviews didn't actually give a formal score/rating (and so wouldn't be eligible for inclusion in our ratings box, apparently), giving the MC score in the box might present a false picture if a few of the excluded publications rated the album more favourably/unfavourably than the aggregate score would suggest.
I appreciate that none of this would apply in many album articles, but it's definitely something to bear in mind on the issue of MC scores appearing in ratings boxes. JG66 (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh I agree, there are certain special scenarios where it could be deemed not useful. For example, I think WP:VG doesn't typically use it if it includes 4 or less reviews, because it's not really a statistically significant/representative number anymore. I understand th scenarios you've mentioned above too - I work heavily on 90s/early 2000s music and games, and even with stuff that recent, it can hard to pull together a good reception section because so many reviews are locked away in print media not on the internet. Discussion on talk pages can manage how to handle that though. Sergecross73 msg me 11:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I hear you on the '90s/early '00s releases, Serge: aside from so many reviews from that era having been print-based, the online pieces are often long-gone (websites now defunct). And besides, many notable publications (e.g. Mojo, Record Collector, PopMatters) hadn't yet adopted a formal ratings system in the early 2000s. Excluding them from the ratings box, even when Metacritic's assigning of a score to each review supports whether it's favourable/unfavourable (and that's aside from when a biographer might clearly deem a specific review to be rave/good/mixed/savage), is another way we can end up presenting a false, unbalanced picture of an album's critical standing, as far as the ratings box goes.
I'm just raising this because having the Metacritic score appearing separate from any sort of qualification (such as "based on [numeral] professional reviews"), and the exclusion of notable reviews even when a reliable source (MC or otherwise) can support whether they were/are favourable, mixed, etc., compromises the integrity of the ratings box feature. Of course the accompanying prose can include comments from the non-rated reviews, but the box itself can give a false impression. Apologies for the super-long sentences, btw … JG66 (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Getting off topic so I won't push this here in this discussion, but I wonder sometimes about including contemporary and legacy reviews in the same album ratings table, as it touches on what JG66 and Sergecross73 say about legacy reviews often being more complimentary than reviews on the album's original release, and the Metacritic score therefore not reflecting contemporary review scores. But this is better discussed in a separate thread or RfC. And to everyone, although I'm not in the UK all the time, if anybody would ever like me to look up contemporary reviews in print form in the British Library, I'm very happy to do so – just drop me a line on my talk page on which albums you'd like me to look for. Richard3120 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
From my point of view, working in the era of music that I do, it's not really an issue, because usually the albums warrant separate Critical reception and Retrospective assessment/legacy sections. Meaning that the ratings box only appears in the second of those sections (there having been no formal reviewer ratings on release, back in the '60s/early '70s – well, barely any). But a new thread on the issue might be welcome … JG66 (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

"Cons of enforcing Metacritic's score into ratings templates", by Dan56

  • The ratings template is entirely optional in and of itself, so it'd be wise not to be gratuitous with it. The guideline explaining the purpose of the template suggests less importance and responsibility be given onto the ratings template and more on the written portion of the section: The bulk of the information should be in prose format, though the text may be supplemented with the Album ratings template, as a summary of professional reviews in table form. The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review cannot be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars or other scoring system. There are other aggregate websites (ce. AnyDecentMusic?) that can also be highlighted, so why favor Metacritic? More importantly, Wikipedia articles should be written with the general reader in mind; one can hardly be considered a reader if they overlook a section's worth of prose to glance at a tiny box listing scores. I also don't see how having a sentence summarizing critical consensus ("generally positive reviews", for instance) in both the lead and the body doesn't say enough about how an album was received to the reader and they would need an average score also, a score which may seem arbitrary to many readers since it's in one's own mind what level of score would be considered "good" or "positive". As for there being other articles where editors have edited this way, it's not relevant (WP:OTHERSTUFF). Dan56 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The infobox already performs the function of summarizing, for a "quick glance", the most important aspects of the article, so whatever needs be there already is there; if MC's score is that essential to a reader's understanding, perhaps see how proposing the score be implemented in the infobox would pan out. I don't see why any reader would overlook the first few sentences of a section in favor of a ratings template anyway; the general reader would not likely be familiar with Wikipedia's ratings templates, so they would not expect one to be there; if they go to a section titled "Reception" or something of the like, they most likely go there with the intention of reading at least some of it, and the line about Metacritic is usually one of the first few sentences, so it's not like it's buried in the prose and difficult to find. Dan56 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The benefit of excluding the score from the template is keeping the section more neutral; Metacritic is not omniscient and beyond reproach; their calculations are occasionally erroneous (emails asking them to correct certain publication's scores are not responded to, believe it or not), and they have excluded or continue to exclude--since Metacritic's start--some very notable American reviewers/publications (USA Today, Noisey, The Washington Post, to name a few), along with notable publications outside the U.S. (The Irish Times, The Globe and Mail, The New Zealand Herald, Toronto Star), some that AnyDecentMusic? does include. My point being, Metacritic may follow a computerized calculation, but it's system is based on human design, selection, etc. and as such, is just another perspective or point of view. It wouldn't be in the spirit of what WP:CRIT or WP:NPOV have to say, to overemphasize this one perspective when the other scores are only mentioned once, as they should be; prose overrun with mentions of scores given would read clumsily and heavy-handed. Dan56 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, keep in mind that the ratings template was originally created to facilitate the move of review scores that were once in the infobox out of there. Often, this resulted in just a ratings template with no corresponding section of prose; that is why there is also the parameter noprose=yes/no. The template, in these cases, serves as a repository for useful links to build a section of prose from, Metacritic's entry page for a certain album being one of them. There are still articles that are still lacking in sections covering critical response and have only scores that were moved into the template; Metacritic being in the template in this case was an initial step to hold information there until a section is fleshed out. Dan56 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This, along with everything else I've said, I imagine is the reason why Template:Album ratings#Parameters distinguishes the "MC" field as "optional" rather than "required" when having the template in the article. This is why I would encourage bypassing the option when the article has been developed to the point of having a complete section on reviews, ideally with Metacritic's score being mentioned and contextualized in the first few sentences, if one exists for the album. Just my opinion, and preference, of course. Dan56 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Most of your arguments don't really make sense because they seem to hinge on the idea that having it in the review box lacks the proper context...but that doesn't make sense, because all of the proper context would still be given in the prose, because we're talking about having it in both. If no prose exists, and its just a review box and nothing else, then many of the same issues would occur with using any reviews, because they'd also lack context. Many of your gripes seem to be about aggregators in general, but you don't seem to be pushing for their outright removal (nor should you - that'd be an uphill battle for sure) so I don't really know what to say on them. In regards to AnyDecentMusic - I don't know, feel free to propose using that too? Or have you already and got rejected? I'm personally not familiar with that one - MC is the industry standard when it comes to the world of video games, and since I already use it in that content area, I've used it in the music world too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
No. They hinge on the idea that having it in the review box when it's already in prose is giving undue weight to a particular point of view or source. It's a basic tenet of encyclopedic editing, including Wikipedia's. It also lacks context because the general reader may not be familiar with what an aggregate is, let alone Metacritic, but that's a side issue. It's just nonsensical to reiterate a score that's already elaborated on in the first few sentences of the section. Doesn't make sense. Isnt necessary. Shouldn't be enforced just because there's an option to do so. Dan56 (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
It's a second mention on a little, tiny section of an already small review table towards the bottom of the article. Its not that big of a deal. Your reaction would be justified if we were talking about blow the MC score to the size of the album art and plopping it down right under it or something, but this is far more minor. Also, wiki-links like Metacritic and review aggregator are plenty sufficient for informing the uninformed reader. I'm a big advocate of WP:AUDIENCE, so if you've got me telling you that people can easily figure this out, you know you're taking the reader for being an idiot. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The reiteration is also slightly garish and distasteful, and suggests our readers are lowbrow to the point of needing things highlighted and repeated for them. And yes, it's minor. So minor that another editor started a post that seemed to be growing even before I got here. I suppose if it's minor we can just all forget about it then, right? Dan56 (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Your response reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If repeating ourselves in sidebar boxes were that offensive to the reader, we wouldn't have infoboxes. Or navigation templates on band articles. Sergecross73 msg me 23:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dan56: You made it very clear, but I'm still don't think the MC score shouldn't be removed or be forced to be removed based on your opinion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going around articles I wouldn't otherwise edit, on a mission removing the fucking thing lol. When I make significant revisions to this particular section of album articles, or when I create them, I don't use the MC option, or I remove it if it's already there. If people take issue with it, that's their prerogative. Dan56 (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like you're all set then - if you're reworking obscure articles, and no one objects, you're fine. But as soon as someone objects, you need to hash it out on the talk show page before pursuing further, because consensus is that it's generally acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 23:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I think an edit summary will suffice. But where is this consensus you speak of? One that's agreed Metacritic's score should be repeated in the ratings template when it's already in the prose? Dan56 (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
No, even WP:BRD says a discussion. Beyond that, well, there's unanimous support at your Drake article RFC where your dispute started, entire WikiProjects that support it, and a massive percentage of WP:ALBUMS articles that implement it. I think the bigger question is who's opposing it besides you. I haven't seen that yet. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I have no "Drake article RFC", so I don't know what you're talking about (??); "A massive percentage of WP:ALBUMS articles" (WP:OTHERSTUFF); "entire WikiProjects that support it"; where is this supposed support by entireties of WikiProjects? Dan56 (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Someone nentioned that they thought this discussion had originated from from a dispute at the Nothing Was the Same article. As you have been the only person who complains about this, I assumed you were involved in that. Regardless, the input between there and here is pretty clear that there is support for putting the MC score in prose and review tables. Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I had no involvement at that article. Dan56 (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Regardless, maybe check the discussion on it out, because nobody agrees with you there either. Sergecross73 msg me 02:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, aren't you the bearer of bad news 9_9 Dan56 (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Also of note is WP:ALBUMS itself stance, specifically WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES example, where it shows using both. The other WikiProject I was speaking about was WP:VG. WP:VG/S it's acceptable for prose, WP:VGAGG says it's acceptable for review table. The WikiProject is very active and only adds to these things if there is an active community discussion and consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 01:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting editors rigidly duplicate WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES's presentation of an unfilled ratings template accompanied by a quote-boxed two-sentence paragraph that also repeats the idea that an album got "mixed or average reviews"? I'm sure that isn't the archetype. Template:Album ratings also lists MC as an optional field, so unless you can refer me to a consensus that says it should be enforced whenever possible... Dan56 (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey! Perhaps you'd like to also arbitrarily enforce the optional ratings template itself here, an article where I chose to forgo the ratings template altogether. Boy, I must have been really crazy to do that :) Dan56 (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Nobody is talking about "mandatory enforcement" but you. The rest of us are asking if it's generally acceptable. It is. If it's generally acceptable, then it's up to you to start up discussions whenever you want to exclude it, but people disagree with you, because 1) BRD and 2) it's generally acceptable. Stop making this more complicated than it really is. Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Where/how have I even suggested "mandatory enforcement" of anything? Take a look at my talk page (for example); the discussions have happened in the occasional instances when an edit summary hadn't sufficed. Stop misrepresenting it. I don't see any consensus, just a haphazard discussion with passing comments, digressions, other editors' preferences about older albums, etc. that's spiraling further downward with this banter. Dan56 (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Multiple Wikiprojects finds the use of aggregators generally acceptable, without any of the restrictions/limitations of your stance. If agreggators are generally deemed acceptable, the burden is on you to show there's a consensus for your limitations on it. Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what you're (mis)interpreting ("without any of the restriction...") Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm saying, there's a reason why none of the various guidelines I've quotes say "but don't use it in the prose and the infobox at the same time". Because there's no consensus against doing that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey @Sergecross73: should we make a proposal to see how many users agree or disagree about the MC score being both in the template and in the critical reception section? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I would like to see that. You could just place an RfC tag atop this section ("#Metacritic") while adding a subsection for votes. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
TheAmazingPeanuts - Yeah, I suppose that would be a good idea. Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

FLC for Latin Grammy Hall of Fame

I nominated the article for Latin Grammy Hall of Fame for FLC.I'd appreciate thee feedback! Erick (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

"Lucid"

Should an album article indicate the existence of an EP with the same name? The owner of the article Lucid (album) removed the hatnote indicating the existence of Lucid EP or even the dab page. I think it should have a hatnote, what do you think? -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

If the Lucid EP was an actual article, it'd be plausible, but since it's only a redirect, and has been since 2010, I would not use a hatnote in this situation. Sergecross73 msg me 04:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

FAC: House of Music

My nomination of House of Music for featured status is up. Any reviews or comments would be appreciated. Happy Turkey Day! Dan56 (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Albums/Archive 53 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

MOSALBUM Vague Terms

Hello. I think some aspects of the album MOS are vague. "Charts" or "Chart positions" -- or sometimes I see, "Personnel" and "Credits and personnel", "Reception" or "Critical reception". I was hoping to start a conversation to hone in on what other editors are seeing or might be confused about and hopefully tighten the guidelines of our Album MOS. My stances are it should be "Chart positions", with Certifications in its own section; "Critical reception" when talking about reviews of any kind but "Reception" for a combined section [Critical and commercial if they're too short]; and "Personnel" for all types of credits. --Jennica✿ / talk 16:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This is just personal preference: if one editor uses "Reception", then changing it to "Critical reception" is trivial. The key consideration is the reader. If the reader is likely to be confused, then a clearer heading is needed. I can't imagine anyone being confused by a heading such as "Personnel" on one page and "Credits and personnel" on another. EddieHugh (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree. None of them seem wrong, so I don't really see the need for absolute standardization. Besides, sometimes they need to be changed depending on the album you're working on. (Sometimes, a dedicated "Background" section is warranted, while other times, there's only a little bit to be said, so it makes more sense to make it be "Background and recording" or something like that.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, completely agree with both of the above comments. Although I think it should be possible to come up with a consistent, uniform approach in the wording for each of the infobox parameters, when it comes to the article body it's not as straightforward. With albums (and individual song articles), sometimes the compositional side of the work comes about as much through the period of recording as with any dedicated songwriting process, depending on the artist perhaps. Meaning that in some cases, the songs might need to be discussed before Recording, if it's clear the artist has accumulated (completed) songs and then recorded the album; in other cases, discussion of the songs/musical content might come after Recording, if the studio environment had a major bearing on the completed work. JG66 (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
That's what I would like - a uniformed approach. I already consulted with @Koavf: and he told me "Personnel" was preferred over Credits and personnel and "Chart positions" over plain "Charts". He said an MOS is supposed to be pedantic. The guidelines aren't as tight as they should be in my opinion. --Jennica✿ / talk 17:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll say the same thing I tell WP:VG every time they try to get too detailed with the guidelines and minutiae within it: You can make all the rules you want, but you've got to keep in mind you've got to keep them enforceable in the realm of practicality and motivation. Let's say the MOS is changed from "Charts to "Chart positions". That doesn't' mean there will be any meaningful change. Even in the active WikiProjects, the active participants are still only a very small fraction of the editing population. Most of the editing population outside of GA/FA fanatics wont even notice. Beyond that, you're likely to be met with apathy from the regulars who do notice the change, because there's really no net benefit here. There's no real effective change in message, and there's more important (and interesting) editing to be done out there. Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Sergecross73. Also JG66 brings up a good point – maybe standardizing the infoboxes would be more beneficial. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not set in stone that everyone must use these headings. Every article is different and requires different sections depending on the circumstances. Why are we trying to fix something that isn't broken?  — Calvin999 12:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ahh nevermind I guess. I thought it would be good to refine and tighten the guidelines a little more. I like uniformity and was trying to get a general consensus. Koavf encouraged me to write about this and I kinda sorta knew people would disagree with me. --Jennica✿ / talk 20:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Songs in album categories

Should songs be categorized into albums categories? At See You Again (Wiz Khalifa song) my removal of the song from the albums category was reverted [7] ; it was still categorized into the property category. -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

a song isn't an album, so why would it? 65.94.168.229 --Jennica✿ / talk 14:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't. Looks like someone else switched it from "Fast and Furious albums" to a more general "Fast and Furious" related category, which is more appropriate. Perhaps that's what the person who undid you edit thought he was using to begin with? Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC on whether to italicize Pitchfork (website)

A public request for comment was posted for a discussion on this question, and your input would be welcome: Talk:Unknown Pleasures#RfC: Italics for Pitchfork (website) magazine?. —BLZ · talk 18:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

MuuMuse

Just wondering if this website is considered to be a reliable source? I see a lot of album reviews. Thank you.--TerryAlex (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Better to take these to WP:RSN, but since you've brought it here I will say they generally judge a site based on two criteria:
  1. does the site have a professional staff
  2. is there editorial oversight
If these two things can be proven then it's usually considered a reliable source. Occasionally, they will determine that if other media relies on a site it is a reliable source, but that can be ruled out for this site. So looking at the the about page, it calls itself a "classy music blog". That doesn't look good. It lists no staff and no editorial policy is discussed. So in short, it doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Now the second question asked is usually what you intend to use the site for. If they do an interview with an artist, that content is likely reliable, however as a source for professional album reviews, I would say not reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Bradley Stern is reliable, but, like Walter, I'm unsure of the quality of this particular site. Better to just find Stern's work that's been published in more clearly reliable publications.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

FA mentor?

I'd like to take Wildflower (The Avalanches album) to FA, but I've never brought any article to FA before. It just passed GAR and I'm looking for someone to mentor me through the FA process or at least provide a peer review because I don't normally edit music articles and I'm not 100% sure what I'm doing. TarkusAB 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This England nominated for Featured article status

I've nominated This England (album) for Featured article status. Project members are invited to participate in the Featured article candidate discussion. Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal at Talk:Dust of Angels (soundtrack)

The proposal to merge the soundtrack into Dust of Angels is discussed. I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Relevant CfD

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_8#Category:Comedy_albums_by_decade Leave your thoughts. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Pat McGee Band albums

Would someone from WP:ALBUM mind taking a look at Pat McGee Band#Discography? A number of stand-alone articles were created for this band's albums, but none of them are supported by citations to reliable sources except for Save Me (Pat McGee Band album), and even the sourcing for that article is questionable at best. Some of the article were released by Warner or one of its subsidiaries, so perhaps that helps with WP:NALBUM, but a number of the independent releases seem to be of suspect Wikipedia notability and seem to fail all of the NALBUM criteria. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Should soundtracks have separate articles from films?

Discuss such a case at an RfC at Talk:Dust of Angels if you care. —  AjaxSmack  01:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Rebel Heart album A-class review

Dear editors, I have scheduled an A-class review for the article Rebel Heart in its talk page here. Would any uninvolved editors please provide their review comment and support or oppose for the promotion, based on the criteria. —IB [ Poke ] 05:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Anyone please? —IB [ Poke ] 05:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
According to WP:ALBUMA, this project doesn't support A-class articles. I can take a look if you'd like thought. Erick (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Magiciandude: did not know that WP:ALBUMS does not support A-class review. I had initiated it as part of WP:MADONNA project which supports it and hence left a note here also. I would be glad if you can take a look and provide your opinion. —IB [ Poke ] 06:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Magiciandude: are you still willing to do a review? —IB [ Poke ] 07:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@IndianBio: Argh, sorry, I've been sidetracked a lot and forgot about it. Let me look into it now. Erick (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC) EDIT: I looked over the article. I can't comment on the prose because I'm not an expert on grammar, but that's a pretty damn fine article if you ask me. There wasn't anything that made me confused as a reader or left me wanting more. Erick (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

NME and Q Magazine archives

Hello. I was wondering if anyone knew where to find archives of NME and Q Magazine. The Wikipedia Library's list of available periodicals doesn't include either of them. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Postmodern albums category

I was wondering if it was worth making a category for "Postmodern music albums", as a subcategory for Category:Postmodern music. I've seen several albums cited as "postmodern" in their articles and wondered if it was worth gathering them all in a category? --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Are there any notable recordings? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I've seen postmodern used in critics descriptions in the pages for Abaton (album), Maxinquaye, Ben Folds Five (album), Not for Nothin', Pal Judy, TNT (Tortoise album) (I included it here), Blaz4me and The Beatles (album) amongst others.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
If no one objects, I want to make this category today or tomorrow.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC

A request was made here. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Tribute albums subcategories

Category:Tribute albums Four years ago or so, there were maybe a dozen subcategories of this by artist being given tribute and each of those had several entries. I have suggested for deletion many such subcategories that only contained a few entries. The most recent was here. I took a look at the parent to see that it had ballooned to having almost 200 subcategories, almost all of which are in the single digits of entries. It seems like there's a systematic attempt to empty the category. Does anyone know about this or have strong feelings on it? I think that it's wise to restrict subcategorization to categories which only have ~<5 entries. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Question about adding a 'upcoming' release to the rest of albums

Isn't there a Wikipedia rule that says that an album can not be added to an album's discography list if it hasn't been released yet? Example

Albums
  • Test Album (2014)
  • Test Album 2 (2015)
  • Test Album 3 (2017) (to be released sometime in 2017 after being pushed back in 2016)

I just want to know because this may fit the criteria for En Vogue#Discography whereas User:Cultureinject keeps adding "Electric Cafe" to the list even though it has yet-to-be released. It has no official release date other than saying "2017 and it was pushed back in 2016. Horizonlove (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, WP:CRYSTAL is one such guideline.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
We definitely need there to be an album name before listing it in the discography (no "TBA (2017)" or "Untitled seventh studio album (2017)" type stuff). There's nothing explicitly against future album's being listed though. You shouldn't guess what year it'll be released or anything, but honestly its not very often that we don't at least know the release year of an album. Outside of rarities like Chinese Democracy or Detox, usually by the time we've got an album name, we've at least a release year, or if we don't have a name yet, then we don't list it at all yet.
So, looking at the page we're discussing, the album name and year is known, so it should be listed in the discography. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
That is also my question too. Should "Electric Cafe" be listed in the discography even though it was pushed back? Someone added a source saying that was to be released in 2016, they added two sources saying that it will be released in 2017. However, none of those sources list a [release date] month and day, only an expected year [2017]. Personally I think 'Electric Cafe' should be removed until it is released, but I wanted to see what the rules say before I proceeded any further because my edits were constantly reverted. Horizonlove (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
No, no such rules/restrictions exists. As long as there is a name and year, it's fine to be listed there. Sergecross73 msg me 01:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Improving "Blind Man's Zoo"

I have been working on the article about Blind Man's Zoo by 10,000 Maniacs. I may need help on reviewing the sources and the content for copyediting. --George Ho (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_53&oldid=1140164845"