Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 54

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56→Archive 60

Can we use Acclaimed Music to cite individual review scores?

Hi, I'm having a small disagreement with @Dan56: about the use of Acclaimed Music in the article Call the Doctor. In my opinion, Acclaimed Music cannot be used to cite individual review scores. Dan56 disagrees and thinks the source can be used to cite scores otherwise not easily accessible. More feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Specifically for Music Story scores, as the site is under some kind of extended maintenance and their online-only reviews are not longer accessible anywhere. Dan56 (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dan56: I started a new discussion at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Hopefully we will get more feedback there. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Is this an issue of reliability or attribution? Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Both. If you check its about section, you can see that it's a self-published source. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
If I'm remembering right, in similar instances to this at both this WikiProject and the Video games one, its okay to use sources like this to basically "double check details of reviews", but that you're not supposed to be directly citing it, but rather, should be directly citing the reviews themselves. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
As far as this being a self-published source, the publisher is a statistician and researcher whose work with Acclaimed Music has received, IMO, sufficient third-party coverage, as evidenced by the sources used in the article on Acclaimed Music and others specifically in the field of music journalism who've cited the website, including PopMatters, and the 33⅓ album book series (Matos, Michaelangelo. Prince's Sign o' the Times). According to WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Dan56 (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
True enough, but it still doesn't change the fact that they aren't his reviews though. We also consider Metacritic to be a usable source, but still ascertain that the individual reviews they aggregate should be sourced directly to the individual articles rather than to the MC except page when citing a specific review in the prose. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
That just seems like preference that's been intimated on project-specific guideline pages; is there any overriding policy or reasoning behind completely disallowing a tertiary source like Metacritic or Acclaimed Music from being used in this manner? Even Wikipedia's policy on sources concedes that articles "Wikipedia articles should be based... to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources". What is the practical downside here, regarding Acclaimed Music having reported a Music Story review score that can't be located elsewhere? Dan56 (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I already explained that tertiary sources may be useful if they offer due weight, not what has already been said by a secondary source. --Niwi3 (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Sergecross73 because that's the whole point. Metacritic is a far more reputable website with a stronger impact on the industry and cannot even be used to cite individual review scores (because it's a tertiary source). What makes Acclaimed Music so special? Acclaimed Music is even worse than Metacritic because it doesn't add anything new to what has already been said by a secondary source, so there is really no point in using it in Wikipedia. --Niwi3 (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
It actually does add something new; in case you glossed over it again, Music Story's scores are not accessible elsewhere; even many of the rankings compiled by Acclaimed Music are practically impossible to locate through other means.
@Sergecross73:, would you agree that many of the music/artist bios that compile analysis and summaries of old reviews and other information from other sources aren't allowed either? Because in those instances, as WP:PRIMARY says, a secondary source acts as a tertiary source; think of all those old Down Beat reviews attributed to Alkyer, Enright, and Koransky's The Miles Davis Reader (2007), which was the basis of a chunk of this featured article. That is a tertiary source in that instance; those reviews aren't Alkyer, Enright or Koransky's reviews, yet they're attributed to that book source.
And I don't see any reason stated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources as to why Metacritic cannot be used to cite individual review scores; it just seems to be an unchallenged/undiscussed product of this revision from 2011. WP:PRIMARY--an actual policy page--says Wikipedia articles can be based to some extent on tertiary sources. Please show me something more than an outdated sources guideline page and repeating the word "tertiary", as if that in and of itself makes a source objectionable and forbidden. Because to my knowledge there's nothing on any of Wikipedia's policy pages forbidding tertiary sources. Dan56 (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the concept of "its not adding anything new". I think he means that "Acclaimed Music" itself isn't actually writing any individual reviews. The issue is less about being "tertiary" and more about the fact that its literally not "Acclaimed Music's" work at all. Its an attribution issue. Its the same reason we wouldn't use a magazine scan on Imgur as a source, but rather, we'd cite the magazine directly. Imgur just hosted it. They didn't write anything. So they shouldn't be credited or source. Similar kind of reasoning for AM. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Acclaimed Music isn't an image hosting site; the source in question is an album entry page designed by someone who did the research and curated the numbers before presenting them. Someone has yet to explain why this is a problem. Unless you don't trust it accurately reporting the score it's being used to verify... Dan56 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, you're asking for explanation as to why its a problem to not cite the correct source when citing information...? Do you really not see the importance of directly citing the actual writer of a source? Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Please. Explain. It. Dan56 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I never said all tertiary sources must be removed. In fact, Metacritic is a tertiary source an can be used in Wikipedia because it offers due weight. WP:PRIMARY is your guideline (tertiary sources point). Also, when I mean new content, I mean original content (it can also be a summary of secondary sources), not repeated content. --Niwi3 (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you're misusing the phrase "due weight". Wikipedia articles give sources and viewpoints a certain kind of weight, not the other way around. Acclaimed Music's entry for an album is a summary of certain secondary sources; summaries obviously involve repeating content. And what is your guideline? Looking at WP:PRIMARY, it appears to be a policy page, not an ad hoc guide like WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE, which itself concedes it is "merely a collection of suggestions, and other good sources may exist." Dan56 (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not create viewpoints. Tertiary sources with proper summaries help Wikipedia give its articles the correct "kind of weight", especially when secondary sources contradict each other. Acclaimed Music is just a list of statistics, not a proper summary/analysis of what secondary sources said. Also, guidelines follow policies; if there were no policies, guidelines wouldn't exist. I have nothing else to add here. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
"Wikipedia does not create viewpoints". I have no idea what this is in reference to. You're just completely missing the ball here. Dan56 (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, viewpoint is probably not the best word here. What I actually mean is that sources proportionally determine Wikipedia's representation of a topic. That representation is based on sources. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been mulling this over before joining the party. I don't see a problem in using Acclaimed as a source for album ratings, nor for appearances in critics' best album/song lists. The site exists for such details, and only that. In fact, it's their "original" content that's the least useful – the rankings by year, decade and all-time – because the site doesn't factor in dedicated reviews from Rolling Stone, Mojo, Q or anyone else, only assessments published in album guides and reference works. Meaning that, for Wikipedia, statements such as "The album is ranked the 21st most acclaimed album of all time by Acclaimed Music" should be avoided, imo. Going back to those critics' best album/song lists: Acclaimed reproduces the results from the likes of Paul Gambaccini's multi-contributor Critics' Choice: Top 200 Albums and the NME's 1974 and 1987 best-album-of-all-time lists. These were hugely influential for years after publication, and Acclaimed seems to be the only place online that gives the full rundown for them (but alas, not the commentary) – unless one counts rocklists.co.uk, which I understand is a feeder site for Acclaimed.
  • Until they were withdrawn sometime last year, we could cite the artists' "Awards" pages on AllMusic to support an act's entire list of Billboard chart placings and Grammy nominations and wins. This feature was extremely useful and (as reflected in the amount of work that's now needed in GAs, FAs and FLs to fix all the dead links) used in countless music articles. We still use Muze-compiled information from sites such as CD Universe as a source for both album review ratings & scores and direct quotes from reviewers. I think Acclaimed should be treated in a similar light as AllMusic's "Awards" and the Muze-generated product information. JG66 (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree--if they are saying, "Rolling Stone said [x], NME said [y]", then as far as I can tell, they have been accurate. Does anyone have contrary examples? We could treat Acclaimed Music like any other agreggator in that respect. It acts a little more like an Internet Archive citation than it does Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes in that sense. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree. As Sergecross73 already said, it's "okay" to use Acclaimed Music or CD Universe to double check details of reviews (although I wouldn't do it), but they should not be used to directly cite reviews because these were not published by such websites. Also, statements like "The album is ranked the 21st most acclaimed album of all time by Acclaimed Music" should be avoided because I don't think Acclaimed Music's "original" content is reliable. It's simply a website run by a random guy without any sort of editorial policy or writing credentials. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @JG66:, Acclaimed Music's rankings do not factor in the review/book ratings they list. According to the "About" section at their main page, only year-end, decade-end, and all-time lists are used to come up with the rankings. Dan56 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't read it that way at all. The page says: "Acclaimed Music aggregates music critics' lists and ratings of albums and songs. The albums and songs are ranked by year, country and genre (albums only)." (Is that the statement you were referring to?) From that, it would seem both the lists and the ratings are factored into the rankings. JG66 (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No, @JG66:. Unfortunately there's no direct url to the About section, but it's there--right below those album covers at the top. If you go to "About" (it's the last link, after "Updates" and "Donate"), a page titled "About Acclaimed Music" shows up and explains how the rankings are list-based. On the main page that you were viewing, however, there is something called a "MegaCritic Chart", which is separate from the main rankings and is based on "ratings from a selection of music magazines and webzines", and the reason why what you read before says the website "aggregates music critics' lists and ratings..." Dan56 (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks – I hadn't seen that bit. I still don't think we should include mentions of "the [ordinal] most acclaimed album of [time period] by Acclaimed Music", because it's giving Acclaimed and their rankings recognition that they don't have. I thought the same thing about AnyDecentMusic?: by including the latter's scores beside Metacritic's, we're flattering their standing, imo. JG66 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @JG66:, they've had recognition for several years, in academic/scholarly publications on music journalism ([1]), popular music webzines ([2]), and mainstream newspapers ([3]), just to cite a few. I imagine the prominence in such sources would merit inclusion sometimes or where relevant, more than it would disallow it. Dan56 (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find anything at that first link or access the third (don't worry – if you say it's there, I believe you). That is more encouraging, I admit; not sure I'm totally swayed when it comes to including mention of an album's ranking on Acclaimed, though. Perhaps it's best we concentrate on the point of discussion here, about using Acclaimed Music as a source for individual review scores? (Okay, I introduced the point about also using the site as a source for specific critics' lists and polls, but I think that's more relevant …) JG66 (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

As Koavf mentioned, what Dan56 seems to be suggesting is using Acclaimed Music as a sort of Internet Archive or WebCite link. I think it is perfectly acceptable, under the circumstances, to cite a review to the original source but link to the Acclaimed Music summary if the original source cannot be accessed (I would try Internet Archive or WebCite first, though). Dan56 and Niwi3, does that sound acceptable to you both?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The source of this discussion was this exchange. I'm fine with whatever citation style/compromise, so long as the addition of a score like in that edit isn't simply removed altogether. Dan56 (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, a link to Acclaimed Music doesn't make any sense because Acclaimed Music doesn't offer the full review. If you cite a review to the original source and want to have an extra url link to an online version, then that url must contain the full review, because you are citing the full review, not the score. If you can't find a full online version of the review, just keep the original publication; it's not required to be online. Print sources are much better than web sources because you don't need to worry about link rot issues and don't need to be archived. Also, I consider Acclaimed Music to be unreliable because it is run by a random guy who hasn't shown any sort of credible or professional experience in the music industry. I think it should not be used in Wikipedia at all. This is, of course, my opinion. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Fine with the point about how to cite. But as far as the site being entirely unreliable... well, I don't see why he's required to have experience in the music industry. He's a statistician, a numbers guy, for which he's fairly noted, among professional music journalists/sources. And that's all we're using him/the site for, the numbers. We're not citing his opinion on music, which he never expresses, at least to my knowledge. Surely he can be trusted solely on gathering and aggregating data? Dan56 (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I still don't understand why it's such a big deal to forbid the use of Acclaimed Music. Except for some highly unreliable rankings, the website doesn't offer anything new, so truly Wikipedia won't lose anything. Sure, it can give you access to certain review scores otherwise not easily accessible, but what is the point of having review scores without proper context? What is the point of having a ratings table with no prose supporting it? Wikipedia is not a list of unexplained statistics. This is an ecyclopedia and things should be put into context. If you're simply chasing statistics for the sake of statistics, then I'm sorry but this site is not for you. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a very reductive way of looking at this. MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template makes it clear that the ratings template is meant to supplement the prose; a review score--even one attributed to Acclaimed Music--would obviously do that. And there's nothing remotely close to evidence of the rankings being "highly unreliable". Dan56 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
That's the way I see it. Feel free to agree or disagree. A consensus needs to be reached, though. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to present evidence to support the idea that the rankings are "highly unreliable"... Dan56 (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I already said it's a website run by a random guy. That alone makes it unreliable in my eyes. There is no way to know if the statistics he shows are accurate. There is no editorial policy or oversight or any official connection to the content he is hosting. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
At this point, he's no longer just "a random guy". From 2003 to the present, the frame of reference his algorithms and rankings provide have drawn enough attention to be considered a notable perspective. That includes attention from academic publications on music journalism ([4]), popular music webzines ([5]), and mainstream newspapers ([6]). It's not really a matter of reliability when the rankings are presented in articles as a certain point of view, attributed in-text to the source ("According to Acclaimed Music..."). We're not using him or the site to verify and present facts. As far as music-related aggregates, he's one of the notable ones when it comes to these best-of rankings. And that, IMO, suggests meriting it inclusion in articles, more so than disallowing it. I don't see it as a question of reliability when we're not using him for facts; the rankings have become a commonly-cited point of view. Which is also part of giving due weight, that articles "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". He's certainly not not prominent. Dan56 (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Notability doesn't have anything to do with reliability. In fact, The Daily Mail, a very notable newspaper, has been considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards. Like it or not, no matter how notable the website can be, it's unreliable because there is no way to know if the statistics he shows are actually accurate. I have nothing else to add here. I just hope a consensus is reached soon. --Niwi3 (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Right, and reliability has nothing to do with any of this. Dan56 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Consensus

Alright, I'll start the formal process. Feel free to oppose or support the following issues. Pinging all users who have been involved in this discussion: @Dan56: @Sergecross73: @JG66: @Koavf: @3family6: @Only in death: -- The result of this consensus should be reflected in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


Attribution issue: Acclaimed Music should not be used to cite individual review scores

  • support - per what I already said above. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - per my comments here and at RSN. Sergecross73 msg me 12:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose it being cited as the source itself. I support linking to it as a reference/archive link.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose it as a source/support it as a pointer to other sources It's good to have a threshold about reliability and sources but unless anyone has some reason to think that they are fraudulently publishing others' reviews, then it's a totally appropriate source to use. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. (As in: yes, it should.) Per my comments in discussion above, I think it's fine to support mention of a reviewer's rating or an appearance on critics' best-album lists with a citation to Acclaimed's page for the album in question. Just as we used to be able to do for Billboard chart peaks with AllMusic's artist "Awards" tabs (before AllMusic removed them) and can still do by citing Muze-supplied product info at sites such as CD Universe. This is also consistent with using, say, a band's biography as a source for quotes (and ratings) from contemporary reviews. In all cases, it's not ideal – the review/critics' list itself would be preferred, but that's often near-impossible. JG66 (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I would prefer it be used as a last resort if certain items can't be attributed to a fleshed-out citation of the "original source"; for instance, a poll ranking published in a newspaper that may require a page number that's not online, or a defunct/outdated website with no archive available whose review score can't otherwise be verified. Dan56 (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Reliability issue: Acclaimed Music should not be used in Wikipedia at all

Result?

It seems that there is a weak consensus against the use of Acclaimed Music to directly cite review scores. If you don't have any objections, I will remove the Music Story reference in the Call the Doctor article because we don't have a direct link to the original review. As to whether you can use Acclaimed Music to cite rankings or other similar info, I guess that depends on whether you consider it reliable or not. I'll leave it at that. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I see no consensus nor "result", nor a reason to hastily declare one when this subsection has been open for four days @Niwi3:. I understand you want to see this go your way, but surely it can wait. And you're not exactly the appropriate person to declare or interpret an outcome. You should consider tagging or restructuring this as an RfC. Also, you once again made no effort to improve my edit to Call the Doctor, instead removing the score altogether. Thanks. Dan56 (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I thought four days were more than enough, especially because there has been no activity since Feb 14. In any case, I don't mind waiting a bit longer. Also, as I already said, I removed the whole ref because I couldn't find the original review link, not even in the Wayback Machine. In my opinion, no score is better than an unreferenced score. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The "votes" seem split, with a few being ambiguous or with caveats. And well, why not just make a basic reference like this: <ref>{{cite web|title=Review: ''Call the Doctor''|author=Anon.|year=n.d.|publisher=[[Music Story]]}}</ref> Dan56 (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible help

I created Template:Acclaimed Music and put it into the wild at A Love Supreme. Maybe we could use this to 1.) encourage it to go only in external links sections and 2.) track pages using it. After x weeks/months, we can take a look at see if the pages that have it are pointing to genuinely useful external links resources. Thoughts? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice work with the template! I've linked it manually at numerous articles myself by now. Dan56 (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dan56: After it has several use cases in the wild we can see if other editors are removing it or propagating it, etc. Not everyone watches this page of course. Thanks for helping me spread it some and see how it plays out. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf:, as a suggestion... I often add a parenthetical note beside the external link, that it's a "list of accolades", similar to the Discogs template saying "list of releases". Like here. Dan56 (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Chronology in Album Infobox

Proposal to link to existing articles per WP:INFOBOXUSE. Discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_album#Chronology. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Madvillainy/GA1

File:Madvillainy cover.png This article was apparently nominated for a WP:GA by a drive-by editor - they haven't edited since December 15, 2016. If any Project members want to step in to work on the article per my suggestions that would be awesome. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

One more single

At least in some countries Painted Desert was a single too. It should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.183.8.78 (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're going to be more specific about the subject and changes you want made. If you look at Painted Desert, you'll see it can refer to many things. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup request on Pearl Jam discography

I started the discussion at Talk:Pearl Jam discography#Trimming down the list about the Featured List, Pearl Jam discography. Trimming was suggested in the merge discussion. Therefore, I invite you potential volunteers for cleanup. --George Ho (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sin Is In

The article Sin Is In has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to meet WP:NMUSIC, WP:Notability, and/or WP:V#Notability. Also, no reliable sources to verify the notability of the album have been found.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. George Ho (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Original research question

Some bands have more than one lead singer. Is it original research to list the lead vocal position without a secondary source? For instance, on Pain Killer (Little Big Town album), there is a "Lead singer" field. The album liner does not say which of the members sang lead on which song, and I could not readily find sourcing for anything other than the singles. By comparison, the lead vocal positions are listed in the liner notes to Big Iron Horses, although this is not currently cited as footnote. So is it only acceptable to do this when sourced? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this would hold up in anything official like a GA or peer review, but I usually take them by a case by case basis, based off of whether or not the claim seems questionable. With some bands, like lets say Linkin Park, the two singers's voices are very distinctly different, so I don't usually go challenging those claims very much. (Only one raps, only one screams, different sounding singing voices, etc) On the other side of things, I feel like I'm constantly challenging/fighting with editors on unsourced lead guitar/rhythm guitar claims on these dual-guitar modern rock bands that play simplistic songs that don't have clearly lead/rhythm guitar parts, and don't clearly define the role between band members, because that's far less "obvious" stuff. Same with "backing vocals" claims - some editors like to add every band members who's ever opened their mouth to breathe as a "backing vocalist". I usually ask for sources to confirm its true, and clarify the frequency of such a role.
So basically, I'd say "when in doubt, source it", but don't go indiscriminately tagging every single instance of it as "citation needed" or anything. If you do have a good-faith concern though, I'd believe it'd be the other person's burden every time to come up with a a source to back it though. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Discord chat

Hello. I just wanted to notify some other WikiProjects of this - a few of the experienced editors and admin of WikiProject Video Games have set up a Wikipedia specific Discord (software) chat up for Wikipedia. Our little sub-community has enjoyed using it to talk about things more tangentially related to direct Wikipedia editing, so we thought we'd spread the word to some other areas and see if they had any interest. Figured I'd start here since music is my other main area of contributions.

Anyways, the invite link is here. for a more music-related group, though obviously everyone is welcome everywhere. The "code of conduct" stuff is pretty much like IRC. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Foreigner - Agent Provocateur.JPG

The copyright status of File:Foreigner - Agent Provocateur.JPG is evaluated at FFD discussion. I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Perfectly Imperfect (EP)

This article says that Perfectly Imperfect (EP) was the highest-selling EP of 2016. Can anyone confirm that? Do they mean US or worldwide? Thanks for any help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Billboard provides sales figures, saying "52,000 units (47,000 in album sales)". The Slanted and Broadway World (or TV News Desk?) don't verify whether the sales are of US or worldwide. --George Ho (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, George. The numbers given in the Billboard article are US sales numbers for that week only. Billboard doesn't tell us anything about the top-selling EPs of the entire year 2016 (I guess one could read all 52 weekly articles by Billboard). BroadwayWorld repeats the same information given by The Slanted, but I don't trust their reporting. I am quite certain that BroadwayWorld does not check the figures independently. Does anyone have access to the Nielsen data for 2016, or some other reliable source? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I added the first week sales anyway. I don't know whether to take The Slanted's conclusions seriously. --George Ho (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

How would you qualify string/brass arrangements for personnel sections?

Many of the articles I work on have personnel sections divided up into subsections, usually by the band members, then additional performers, and then technical personnel (engineers, producers, etc). My question is would you consider an arrangement to be better suited for crediting as a performers' credit or a technical credit? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: For what it's worth, I very much dislike the style that says "Trombonists: X, Y, Z" over "*X: Trombone *Y: Trombone *Z: Trombone" and I really dislike inconsistency in having both styles in one list. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
That wasn't quite what I was asking, but I'm glad to have thoughts on that, as well. I would see the subsections in Achtung Baby#Personnel and The Joshua Tree#Personnel as an example of what I mean. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Y2kcrazyjoker4: Ah. Is musical arrangement a "musical personnel" or "technical personnel" classification, not "do you like the arrangement of these lists"? I think of arrangement like conducting, composition, programming, or the technical engineering/mastering/mixing/production: they are not performing the music via singing or instrumentation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I saw your edits to the 2 articles I referenced. So a few things - I noticed you combined technical credits and performance credits for some people so that each person is only listed once. Unfortunately, by doing that, the sub-headings no longer make sense (take a look and see what I mean). "Additional performers" have technical credits next to their names, but the "technical" section doesn't have all technical credits since some of folks are already under "additional performers". It's confusing to see Brian Eno listed as an additional performer but not a technical personnel, considering his primary role for U2... hence, why I listed him under both sections. I guess that leads to the inevitable question of why we would have these subsections. I for one favor them because as a reader, I am first and foremost interested in seeing the primary artist/contributing performers and what they played on the album. After that, I would expect to read about the behind the scenes folks. This follows the way the liner notes credit these people (at least, for U2 albums that is), as well as how the closing credits in a movie credit actors before the technical staff. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Y2kcrazyjoker4: I disagree that the break-up in credit types no longer makes sense: I think there is a kind of cascading priority where we should only list a person one time no matter his contributions, starting with the credited performer (in this case, U2), followed by other musicians who actually played the music, and ending with anyone else who assisted in making the technical end, packaging, etc. That is how I've always made these personnel lists. So, I agree that there is a kind of inherent priority for the actual band or solo artist or dueting collaborators themselves followed by additional personnel in general. And of course, at times there are so few additional personnel that they don't need to be split into "performers" and "technical"; other times, additional sections may be useful (such as if there were a dozen different artists making photos and paintings for liner notes). Does that make sense? Does anyone else have a take on this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I was hoping some other people would add to the discussion so it wasn't just me giving my opinion... but I'd like to pick it back up. I understand your points, they're certainly valid. Let me see if I can elaborate on what I said above. I still feel that if there are subsections in the personnel section, the type of credits that go within each section shouldn't be intermingled. From a reader's perspective, I would expect all guest performer credits to be under a section title "Additional performers" and all production/technical credits to be under a section called "Technical" or "Production" (particularly the primary producers of a record) – even if they also performed on the album. Now, I completely understand that not all types of records can have such a distinct line in the sand drawn between performers and production staff. On a hip hop album, there may be several contributing performers whose work blurs the lines between those roles (e.g. sampling, beats, traditional production). In a situation like that, it probably doesn't make sense to have subsections at all and instead would be better to just list each person once with all their credits in one list. In other cases, though, if there are something like two or fewer people who share performing and production duties out of a much longer list of personnel, I personally don't see an issue with having separate subsections and repeating their names in each of them. We're only talking about repeating a couple of people for the sake of neatly organizing types of credits. Please let me know your thoughts. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, what you're describing is generally how I organize it for the articles I create/maintain/overhaul. It tends to work just fine for your typical rock/metal/prog rock type albums I usually work on anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Blues Is King

Hi. So, I ran across a brief mention of the 1966(?) Blues Is King live album by B.B. King (saying it was long hailed as one of the greatest). I wanted to read about it more but was shocked! :) we have no article. Do you guys and gals have a request article section? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears that it may have been recorded in 66 but was not released until 67 according to http://www.allmusic.com/album/blues-is-king-mw0000207640. This is supported at https://www.discogs.com/BB-King-Blues-Is-King/master/146582 which claims that there are 20 different versions of the release. I don't see much about it though, but the AllMusic entry and the PBS not might be enough for the shell of an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Sputnik reviews

When we say "staff" reviews are acceptable for Sputnikmusic, does that include reviews credited to a "contributor"? Say, this one for Beatles' for Sale – but not of course this one, which is credited to a "user". I'm not too familiar with the site's reviews; can't say I'm too impressed with them either, but never mind … Thanks, JG66 (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@JG66: - Hi. On the wikipedia page it gives a little more info on the difference between contributor and user; Sputnikmusic#Reviewer_stratification.

Contributing Reviewers can contribute features, but are not eligible for inclusion by either Metacritic or Wikipedia, yet are acknowledged as being writers who generate content of a passable quality. There are currently 23 contributing reviewers.[6]

-- I'm going to guess no, since their reviews aren't eligible for inclusion by MC. --Jennica✿ / talk 23:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jennica: Ah, thanks for that. I wonder if we should clarify the difference on the Sources page – actually state that "contributors" are no-go. Because, currently it's only "users" that are explicitly barred, which is why I thought: contributor = staff. JG66 (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree. They're basically a "featured blogger" type status. They're prolific/preferred user-reviewers, but still user-reviewers. I'd stick to just Staff and Emeritus reviews. Sergecross73 msg me 00:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@JG66: The Sources list already says to only use staff and emeritus reviews.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh sure, but my point was that, for someone like me who doesn't have much experience with the site, it might be an idea to clarify the situation. We've long stated that user reviews are unreliable and that staff and emeritus reviews are good, without mentioning "contributors"; plus, it's not clear whether "staff" is our generic wording (and therefore might include contributors) or a designation applied by Sputnik itself. You've just added something in the Sources list, so it's fine now. JG66 (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, it is good to add the distinction, as "contributors" are frequently acceptable on other websites. (Elsewhere, contributor may mean more like "freelance writer/journalist", which would be more likely to be generally considered acceptable.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why I implemented the change.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"Sources to avoid" section

In the "Sources to avoid" section, I noticed this sentence: "AllMusic's genre sidebar should be avoided."

There should be at least one exception to this. The following sentence should be included: "An exception to this is if there are no other reliable sources mentioning a song's genre." Who agrees with this?

The reason why i'm saying this is because I added the genre of the song "Tubthumping" and AllMusic stated it is a pop rock song. A day later, Synthwave.94 undid my edit stating that the AllMusic sidebars are unreliable. I disagreed with him because I believe that AllMusic is a reliable source for anything related to music. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No. In general, "a bad source is better than no source" is not a theory Wikipedia generally operates under. Sergecross73 msg me 03:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree. The sidebar is not generated by a human. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The band is described as pop and dance anyway, and there's no reason, in the sources, to assume that this song isn't that style, so we don't even need the AllMusic source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Just use this quote from the AllMusic review of the album: "The difference between Tubthumper and the rest of Chumbawamba's catalog lay in "Tubthumping," a giddily infectious blend of big dance beats, pop hooks, and football chants."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that AllMusic's sidebar is not generated by human? I thought the reason we generally avoided citing that was because of all the arbitrary genres they list. With that said, I would agree with using it as last resort, like if absolutely nothing else can be found. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure either way on that aspect of it. The general objection (mine included) has always been that it seems to work much like how retail stores classify their music, where they classify in very broad strokes. For example, classifying the work of a band like Slipknot as "pop/rock" more because they are a "rock act that is popular" rather than because they're a pop rock band. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, just about every rock or pop artist is tagged under "pop/rock" under the "Genre" section. But what I was referring to was the "Styles" section, which lists more specific genres. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
http://www.allmusic.com/faq/topic/wronggenre There are other FAQs. It's clear that the genres and styles are not gleaned from the prose as written by authors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that shows that, not only is it not from the authors, its not really from Allmusic at all... Sergecross73 msg me
Oh, I see now. I guess we really should avoid using that then. Kokoro20 (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I was referring to the sidebar as a whole, I just chose that example as a general one that most could understand the issue, regardless of their knowledge of music. I don't know how any of the sidebars are generated, but they frequently contain errors. (I mean, look at my example above. It lists the album's run-time as over two hours, a physical impossibility for a single album.) It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that they have a "submit corrections" link on the sidebar either. Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with allowing Wikipedia to accept the sidebar for more than just songs, albums and artists as if we're using the worded text for a review for genres surely the sidebar should count too? --Masheenya (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Have you actually read the discussion? Because multiple reasons have been given as to why the sidebars aren't used, including the fact that they don't come from AllMusic, nor does AllMusic even maintain them, (they even say "hey, don't contact us about them") and there's been many instances of genre inaccuracies and basic errors in them as well. An argument like "well why not" makes zero sense here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure it's not as bad as that; on some of their reviews, like Let It Be Roberta: Roberta Flack Sings the Beatles, it's genre was originally for a while just R&B then a few months back it's now: Pop/Rock and R&B
So someone has to have changed it for it to reflect that; it's not like someone off the street has done it.--Masheenya (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Someone made a suggestion. Who? We don't know. Then the company that maintains that information had to make the change to the data. How that process is controlled, we don't know. But ultimately, if you had read the linked FAQ you would have seen that it's not done by the reviewers (at the album level). The style (at the artist level) is not an aggregation of individual albums or anything like that. The simple fact that anyone can suggest a genre and we don't know the process for acceptance of the change requests is the problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see why the genre being altered, without explanation, over time, is somehow supposed to increase confidence in the system. The fact that information is published with errors, and fixed later without note, is not the trait of a reliable source on Wikipedia. Also, Walter and I directly linked to actual, real issues and situations, so a "it can't be that bad" stance doesn't really do a good job of countering that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Good topic nomination: Me Estoy Enamorando (album)

I have nominated Me Estoy Enamorando (album) as a Good topic candidate. I'd appreciate the feedback! Erick (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

2010s in music

I know this is only somewhat related to WP:ALBUMS, but we're more active here than most of the other music-related WikiProjects, so I thought I'd say something here too.

2010s in music is atrociously bad. Mostly unsourced original research and giant paragraphs of excessive example bloat. I mean, I get it, it's rather overwhelming scope - covering an entire decades worth of music as it develops. Its one of the reasons I'm having a hard time even finding a place to begin on cleaning it up. Honestly, I'd WP:TNT it, but the prospect of writing it from scratch is too overwhelming as well.

Anyways, my question is, is anyone aware of an article like this done right, as a goal to work towards? I've found some that are marginally better, but still largely unsourced and unfocused. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"Various artists" vs "various artists"

When it comes to compilations done by various artists, what should the correct capitalization be in the infobox? "Various artists", "Various Artists", or "various artists". I looked through a few hip hop and punk compilations and they were all formatted "Various Artists". --Jennica✿ / talk 23:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: "Various artists" should be the correct capitalization. DBZFan30 (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It's never "Various Artists" For infoboxes or the start of a sentence, use "Various artists". In tables, and mid-sentence use "various artists". Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: – Wouldn't "Studio album by various artists" be acceptable in an infobox as well? It's not like it's a proper noun. Carbrera (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC).
IF that's how it appears, yes that's perfect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Ugh. It's all so inconsistent. --Jennica✿ / talk 02:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure "Various Artists" is the most common usage on Wikipedia, but "various artists" would be the correct use of the artist field within the infobox for such cases, but the chronology parameter needs to be utilized in some fashion (if there is a listed chronology in the infobox) or else it will appear as "various artists chronology", mainly because it's not a chronology for various artists but also it looks odd without the initial capitalization. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Should self-tilted be used in the lede?

An editor has opened an RfC at Talk:Jars of Clay (album)#RfC: "Self-titled". Please discuss there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Multiple chronologies?

Hey guys, I noticed recently that a few album articles have more than one chronology (showing previous and following albums). An example is the ELO articles. Apparently, they're used to differentiate between studio, live and compilation albums, and they're usually sorted as the main chronology and the studio album chronology. Only about 5% of album articles have more than one, I'd estimate. Also, by my reasoning, only one is really necessary, that being the main chronology. The reason is that this list contains all of the albums, thus being more representative of the band's discography. Secondly, more than one chronology can appear messy and misleading. Also, if a reader really feels the need to find seperate lists of studio, live and compilation albums, he can easily access the artist's discography article, which is also much easier at a glance. Granted, more than one chronology may be necessary for a collaborative album, or for an artist for different releases in different countries (i.e. The Beatles), but are they really necessary elsewhere? Best, Liam Gibson (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"Welcome to My Hood" was pointed out in recent discussion, with a comment about the need for a discussion about limiting the use of extra chronologies. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE includes: "the purpose of an infobox: 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 ... wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." Most of the information in these extended chronologies are not key facts. WP:LAYIM also includes: "Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in ... When placing images, be careful not to stack too many of them within the lead, or within a single section; if the images in a section spill over into the next section at 1024×768 screen resolution, that may mean that the section is too short or there are too many images in that section." Some of the ELO album infoboxes stretch down into three or four sections. A WP:RFC might achieve a consensus on the matter (also of interest to the songs project). —Ojorojo (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I put one up on Talk:Alone in the Universe. Best, Liam Gibson (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
A chronology is a linear timeline from a beginning point to an end point. There should not be any branches that lead to dead ends, forcing the reader to backtrack to get back to the timeline. Of course, pointlessly classifying albums as "studio," "live" or "compilation" gives certain editors who otherwise have nothing to contribute something to do. Piriczki (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

drummer credit incorrect

Ian Thomas cited on DVD. There's a white man doing the drums on the video. The drummer link shows a different name and color — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4036:89F5:E9EE:5D12:8259:20A8 (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Er…hm? Liam Gibson (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarification re MetroLyrics

Just want to check: we say under Sources to avoid that "Only the songwriter credits [at MetroLyrics] are unreliable", but when/if those credits are correct, is it still a source to avoid? I've added an external link in a new song article, How the Web Was Woven, since the site's information for the song is correct and the page carries the LyricFind symbol. Thinking about it now, though, perhaps that was wrong of me (even if it's right, so to speak …) – are we deeming the site to be an unreliable source, full stop/period? It's that "Only the songwriter credits …" qualification that throws me. JG66 (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

An external link for the lyrics only should be OK if the correct songwriters are shown. The wording came out of the External links noticeboard discussion. The accuracy of its lyrics was not discussed, so these (with the LF logo) were not deemed to be unreliable. Maybe the wording could be improved: "Songwriter credits are unreliable; lyrics with LF logo are acceptable (see also WP:SONG#LYRICS)". (BTW, ISWC[7] T-010.484.933-3 shows two different Woven writers – "HAYES DAVID STEPHEN, WESTLAKE GERALD CLIVE" (with Presley as performer) and MOST DAVID, WESTLAKE CLIVE (no performer listed)). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks – and yes, that revised wording could be useful. Regarding the ISWC, the original credits I've seen for both versions of the song list the writers as Westlake–Most, and that's the credit that appears also on a recent reissue of Presley's That's the Way It Is album. Hayes was Most's original surname (as for brother Mickie), but I'm confused why it's suddenly been adopted for his songwriting. JG66 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Another merger discussion at WT:SONGS

The merger proposal on {{infobox song}} and {{infobox album}} is discussed at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#RfC: Should Infobox song and Infobox album be merged?", where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

A "question" on a part?

(In the first few sentences might sound off topic.)

Yeah? So? if I look at a page err article. That has a list of a set of songs? Which is bundled for every some songs into an album. But it's before something like '1a' this or '1b' this?
Then the song, err? Album listed 'part' is placed/applied right after that? In a new category below it. as to '2' this?
And? If I happen to come across an article? If it looks like? 'example' say 1? (when looking down of the page or 'sandbox...') Then if later, the info table is down like to 30? And, the table part would take up some room. As the info part err 'box?' to the song/ album would be filled in too?
Then, does the 'note' goes before the "song/ album" part? Or after? say 2? And every whatever, of some cited source(s)... in both parts. So? The question is? Does the 'note' goes last? or? Before the infobox, with the 'song/ album?' Tainted-wingsz (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Archive 54/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Albums.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Albums, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Readers poll vs. critics poll

An IP editor insists on adding rankings on a BBC readers poll of "most overrated albums" to album pages. I don't see the merit of an uncontrolled readers poll, and the IP editor disagrees. Please join the discussion here and weigh in. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 02:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's clearly listed as a reader poll, and it has a source, what's the harm? It's already fluff. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The harm is that the journalistic controls/standards in place for critic rankings/polls almost certainly do not exist for a readers poll. How do you guarantee anyone who voted in a readers poll of "most overrated album" actually listened to a single album, instead of just voting for the artist they find most annoying? How do you guarantee that people didn't vote tens of thousands of times from different IP addresses or use a bot to vote for them? You can't. So I fail to see how it passes the standards laid out at WP:RS. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 02:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

A BBC poll with thousands of votes is inherently notable. I don't see anything disqualifying listener polls at RS. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:F4D4:1445:2733:3A11 (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not inherently notable. BBC could have a daily poll on the sidebar of their website asking a random question every day that gets thousands of votes, but that doesn't make each poll question inherently notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Well the poll has gotten coverage elsewhere, so you're wrong on this one.[8][9] 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:F4D4:1445:2733:3A11 (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it causes much harm. As long as it's not in article's lede and is somewhere in reception or legacy section to add some balance. There's no problem with the reverse situation of greatest albums. For example, in 2006 the British Hit Singles & Albums and NME organised a poll of 40,000 music fans to name what they considered the greatest album. Definitely Maybe came out on top of that poll, which isn't a surprise, telling by demographic factors (young working class people) and being fairly recent. This poll is mentioned in that article and many others. See BBC link [10]Larkhall Lynch (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree as well. Of course there are no guarantees that the polling methodology was sound, or that bots did not compromise the polling or many other things, but it's no different than television or radio programmes where the winners are selected by call-ins, or similar projects. Or worse, stating an album or song is important based on sales. Or that a song is important because it gets more airplay than another song. All rating systems are subjective. As long as it's clear what is being presented, we have to assume that readers understand the credibility of such things. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Everything that Larkhall Lynch and the IP socks say can be discounted, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll. Sro23 (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that may be true of Larkhall Lynch and the IP, but it doesn't mean that the points they raised don't have some validity. I tend to agree with Walter Görlitz: as long as it's crystal clear what the poll is, then there's no problem. It could well be, though, that the album articles already carry plenty in the way of myth-deflating poll results or something similar – in which case this poll is not needed, just like each and every new rave review isn't needed. I think that's the case at Sgt. Pepper, because the retrospective criticism is given way too much coverage in the article whereas the professional reviews included in the ratings box don't even get a mention.
At the same time, I do agree we should be discerning about these listener/reader's polls. I remember a worst Beatles-songs poll in the Daily Telegraph a few years back where Neil McCormick basically wrote a list of what he considered to be the worst songs (with some frankly bizarre inclusions) and said, OK folks, now take your pick and vote ... The problem is, down the line, the results are reported in such a way that "[Track name]" has become "the third worst Beatles song, according to readers of the Daily Telegraph", without any qualification regarding McCormick's list. (I hope I've got that right: I could be confusing my polls and/or publications …)
So, aside from that Pepper-type scenario, the only thing that bothers me is that the IP user failed to add the poll to all the relevant album articles. No additions at OK Computer, Pet Sounds, Never Mind the Bollocks, The Queen Is Dead (list vs contribs) – now what's that about? JG66 (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I would be very reluctant to add reader polls for a variety of reasons. They should really only be added to albums when you're discussing their legacy over time (e.g. a Beatles album may be at the top of readers' best albums for decades across several polls--that is worth noting) or for truly exceptional cases like being considered the worst album of all time but not for every single entry (e.g. "Album #3" by Johnny and the Music-Tones was ranked the #983 best album of all time by Music Publication in 2003. It was ranked #984 best album of all time by Albums Weekly in 2004. etc.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Also oppose, for the same reason that viewers polls and imdb scores are not allowed in film articles- because they are unreliable and can be fixed or manipulated, for example major UK tv channel ITV polls have been subject to fixing Atlantic306 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Dead url FIMI chart

Can someone help me fix the linkrot of the Italian chart in the Drive (2011 film) article? Bluesphere 07:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Soundtracks consisting of multi-song singles and EPs

Which template(s) should be used for soundtracks that consist of "singles" and "EPs", such as at Backstage (2016 TV series) § Music, which has singles with 2–3 songs and an EP with 4 songs? I'm currently using {{Infobox single}} and {{Infobox album}}, but I see that the former is being merged with {{Infobox song}}, but the singles always have at least two completely distinct songs. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Peer review request for Segundo Romance

I have opened a peer review case for Segundo Romance as I wish to nominate it for FA in the near future. I would really appreciate it if anyone from this project would like to give their feedback for the article. Erick (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Pending DYK

It would be nice if an uninvolved user familiar with the DYK criteria could review Template:Did you know nominations/Witness (Katy Perry album). Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about music not included on film soundtracks

Hello! I have opened a discussion at WikiProject film about the inclusion of music featured in the film but not included on the soundtrack. Interested editors, please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Music not included in the soundtrack. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Vague review from The Guardian

Hi all, I'm wanting to use this review from The Guardian in an article, but it is quite vague and comedic and I'm not quite sure how to use it, especially because the song is in fact about believing yourself. It reads:

"This starts off like it's going to be another patronising song about ignoring the haters. "Are you scared of the things they might put you through/ Does it make you want to hide the inner you?" coos the one who was bullied. You think it's going to reach a big "believe in yourself" chorus but instead all of Little Mix shout "CHANGE! CHANGE YOUR LIFE!" This is a far better message to send to kids reared by Hannah Montana and told to stay true to themselves, when in fact, if everyone is calling you a prick, sometimes it just means you're a prick."[11]

Some suggestions would be great. It seems like a negative review to me. I was going to say: The Guardian's Sam Wolfson found the lyrics patronising and naive. Nightclubbing 16:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm reading it as a mildly positive review (and a negative one of Hannah Montana) but, it doesn't really review the song at all, it more of an opinion piece on the message of the song. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not usually the type of thing I'd include in an article I was writing, unless I was desperate to prove notability or fend off a merge/redirect attempt or something, but I guess I don't object to the suggestion you gave above, about noting the lyrics were patronizing and naive. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

WiR focus on music and dance in July

Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.

File:60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg


(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Fantano responded with his take on the debate if his reviews on The Needle Drop are "professional" or not

Watch this video, those of you who continue to erase Anthony Fantano from the critical reception sections of articles Rewind Wrestling (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

While Anthony Fantano's self-published work is currently considered "unreliable" in most circumstance, his review of Angelic 2 the Core is arguably more popular than the album itself. However, the article for that album makes no reference to Fantano's review. It seems almost unfair to the reader to neglect his review on the article. Wikipedia's rules are in place to make articles better, not to prevent important information from being added.
Most users will cite this discussion as the reason that Fantano isn't a reliable source, but the Wikipedia community never truly came to an agreement. Citing that discussion as the community's answer can hardly be considered conclusive. Fantano's work has been published in the past, and he is arguably the most popular and noteworthy self-published music critic right now. The discussion that I linked to above was from 3 years ago, and Fantano's channel size has nearly tripled since then.
I'm not saying that we have to list Fantano in infoboxes, I just think that there are some instances where mentioning Fantano is truly important to the article -- such as with the album Angelic 2 the Core. ThrillShow (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I've been reading through the discussion you linked, and I can't say I gathered any sort of conclusion from it either. It seems unfair to me that the default status is not trustworthy, unless consensus is reached that the opposite is true.
Something else that I find quite ridiculous is the statement that "Fantano is reliable if his review was published by a third party", as found here. Whether or not Fantano's reviews are published by a mainstream/established media outlet doesn't have any influence on the reviews themselves, does it? And with that in mind, shouldn't the fact that these established organisations give this "self-published" YouTube reviewer a voice speak against his supposed lack of credibility? YouTubers have always had and will probably keep having a notoriously difficult time being taken seriously as professionals, and seeing as Wikipedia, too, was once a crowdsourced new media platform (as brought up by Fantano in his response), it should arguably support these new media platforms instead of making it harder for them to establish themselves as serious outlets. In my view, Fantano is a professional reviewer, and it's time for YouTubers to be taken seriously if they pursue a professional career on the platform; journalism and other "serious content" are becoming increasingly prevalent and popular on YouTube, and the public image that the platform has shouldn't influence us as a community, as Wikipedia prides itself on being neutral.
Fantano brought up a couple more valuable points in his video as well; it's worth a watch. Now seems like a good time to reconsider his inclusion on the "to be avoided" list, or at least to attempt to revive the discussion and possibly reach something resembling a consensus. —WLM / ? 23:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Another thing, if I may: in the article for Angelic 2 the Core, which Fantano named the worst album of 2016, he isn't mentioned (obviously). You addressed that, but what you didn't address is that the reader is instead presented with a reference link to Sputnikmusic. Yes, Sputnikmusic.
How is it that a site that simply lists the ratings of average internet users is more credible a source than someone whose profession it is to review music!? Most reviews on Sputnikmusic aren't text or video reviews — they're simply a score. Sites like these are incredibly easy for spam bots to target as well. If some time passes and Fantano retains his "source to avoid" status, continuing to use sites like Sputnikmusic as a source will turn Wikipedia into a joke. —WLM / ? 23:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@WOLF LΔMBERT: I was going to remove the Sputnik reviews blurb under "Reception" because user ratings aren't notable but the one in the infobox is because it was done by a contributor, not a user. --Jennica✿ / talk 00:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Watched the video after seeing several articles be disrupted by IPs/registered accounts this morning. I do think Fantano has some legitimate points, that perhaps we do need to rethink what is considered a reliable source and so on, but I don't know if that's going to be achieved because one music reviewer who is bothered by not being considered professional by Wikipedia made a video about it. Besides that, however, his points that he is "the most popular music reviewer in the world, not meaning to brag" (paraphrasing): how does he know this? He doesn't know how many clicks reviewers over at Pitchfork or other music sites get. Also that he is sometimes largely responsible for acts being signed to major labels or for a music act's fanbase picking up because he reviewed their album, which can't really be conclusively proven unless an act says so themselves, to help prove his point... Not sure what to make of it. Ss112 02:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I was against his use as a source in that original discussion, but I'm not really "one of those users who keep removing him from Wikipedia". I could be forgetting a time or two, but I can't recall a single time off the top of my head that I've removed it from an article in these last three years. No ones even proposed it. I had completely forgotten about the source honestly, it's been a complete non-issue. I've been prominently working on music articles these last few years too, so unless rock music isn't reviewed by the source or something, it doesn't strike me as all that prominent of a source. (Conversely, I'm frequently removing non-RS user reviews from Sputnik Music and Ultimate Guitar. I did just today even.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree—I rarely have come across The Needle Drop being used as a source and I can't recall removing it before today (I may have, though, not sure). As much as I do agree with some of Fantano's points, anybody can get on the Internet and go "I'm an expert in this, I was even previously employed by x". If they're currently with a publication with a significant history that has chosen to employ them based on some value in their work, are being proofread and so on, I find that these are sources we should prefer over again, a seemingly self-aggrandizing guy (a lot of people can talk themselves and their credentials up) with an admitted gripe with this site asking "why am I not reliable? I worked with NPR and Complex". Ss112 02:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not against him but where do we draw the line at YouTube music reviewers if we do include him? Basically he made that video without knowing how Wiki even works - not knowing any of the guidelines (WP:ALBUM/SOURCE) and even thinking that the discussion from 2014 was a recent conversation. I don't know about including his reviews in the review box... but perhaps in prose. Like most things on here, we'd need a consensus. I don't think most people would be for it. --Jennica✿ / talk 02:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Content that is only published on YouTube is essentially self-published. There's no editorial oversight or control, just a person uploading whatever they want to the internet. Per WP:SPS/WP:USERG, this is generally not acceptable. That's the problem with this source. Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
And to clarify, since he spends much of his video missing the point, the issue is less about whether or not he has ever been published in his life, and more about whether particular reviews he's done were published. Any of his NPR work would be usable because it would have to pass through the NPR editorial staff. His Needle Drop stuff is completely independent and has no editorial review. That is the stuff that's not usable. Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Note - I removed the user review from Sputnik music from that Angelic album. But that instance of someone not following consensus has no real bearing on Needle Drops reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 02:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but the rule states, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Fantano is self-published, but he has had his work published by a reputable third party in the past. I honestly believe Fantano meets this standard of reliability. ThrillShow (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
He had a minor role as a contributor for a short time on NPR. That doesn't give him a free pass for everything he uploads to YouTube on his personal account. That clause is talking about your Siskel and Ebert types. Big difference. Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
NPR might not be the most prestigious of third-parties, but it is reliable/reputable. With the way that the rule is currently written, Fantano meets the qualification of a reliable self-publisher. Your interpretation seems to assume some things about the rule that isn't explicitly written, but I'm reading it literally. Fantano -- at one point -- had a review show published by a third party, and now he publishes a very similar show independently. ThrillShow (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No offense, but you've only made about 30 edits, and 7 are today. You're not exactly an expert on this policy. You're twisting the words to make a massive subjective call in favor of your cause here. There's no precedent for your sort of reasoning outside of your massive scholars like Siskel, Evert, Christgau, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I knew it would only be a matter of time before someone brought that up; the length of time I've spent on this site doesn't change what I've said. I also haven't twisted any words. Fantano was published and is now self-published. Ignoring all preconceived opinions about me or anyone else, Anthony Fantano does meet that standard. ThrillShow (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
How does Fantano's having been published by NPR raise his self-published videos to RS status? That's a non sequitur. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
In order to prevent just anybody from claiming to be an expert, the Wikipedia rules regarding self-publication stipulate that an "expert" must have had some of their work published by a third-party in the past. ThrillShow (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Please provide a few examples of minor contributors who once worked for an RS that we gave a free pass to use all of their self-published YouTube videos on Wikipedia. If you're reading into this policy correctly, this should be easy, as it would happen frequently. Sergecross73 msg me 03:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Heck, I'm not even sure if it has happened before, but that doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't happen. I'm not trying to say that every review by Anthony Fantano should be listed in the infobox of every album, I'm just trying to say that blacklisting his input from articles and calling him completely unreliable doesn't make sense. It makes sense to consider Fantano a reasonably reliable source and include his input on a rare case-by-case basis. ThrillShow (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Strawman: nobody said he was "completely unreliable", only that his self-published YouTube videos don't qualify as WP:RSes for Wikipedia sourcing purposes, and that having been published by NPR sometime in the past does nothing to change that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
It hasn't happened, there's no precedent because you're not using it for it's intended purpose. His NPR content would be usable, but his personal content in the form of YouTube or blogging, is not. That's the same way we'd treat just about any writer at NPR, or a comparable publication, so it's not like he's getting unfair treatment or something. Quite the opposite, allowing his content would be special treatment. Sergecross73 msg me 04:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

He does say here at 10:49 that he is affiliated with Complex Media, but I cannot find a source on their website for that. Spin calls him "today's most important music critic"-Jennica✿ / talk 04:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quality information Jennica. As to carry on my conversation with Curly_Turkey, my point was that Fantano's self-published work is often disregarded as being unreliable without any case-by-case analysis. ThrillShow (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
An RS doesn't become an RS because we've examined it closely and judged it so. You're still working from the same strawman that not allowing it as an RS means we're saying it's "completely unreliable". The problem is that you are not trying to understand what WP:RS says and are stuck on that single unit of vocabulary "reliable". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
While we're reading the same document, our interpretations are very different. I have read WP:RS page, and understand that -- under normal circumstances -- self published information is not to be trusted. However, I think that there is reasonable evidence to show that Fantano isn't just an average self-publisher, and he meets the qualifications outlined in the WP:RS; "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." From what I can tell, our interpretations of that line puts us at a complete impasse for now. ThrillShow (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jennica: I'm not intending on becoming a part of this discussion, I'm just a fan following it for amusement. However, in regards to the Complex Media affiliation, it is the content network he is apart of as far as Youtube is concerned. You can see this on the Socialblade page for his channel. 142.116.146.202 (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
You're saying that the bare fact of his being published at some time at NPR establishes him as a "subject expert" to such a degree that we should accept anything else he has self-published? Emphatically no—that's such an absurdly low bar as to make a mockery of the very reasons we would require citation to RSes in the first place. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@ThrillShow: You're not that editor who keep reverting me on Damn, are you? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@TheAmazingPeanuts: No, I haven't contributed to that article before. ThrillShow (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@ThrillShow: Okay, I believe you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, he's probably telling the truth. Whenever someone popular, like a celebrity or comedian or something, says something about Wikipedia like this, it's pretty common to see a short influx of anonymous editors and people reviving their old "2014 created accounts with 13 edits" to act in accordance in the next few days. Chances are you'll probably come across a number of similar-minded editors like this, coming to his defense and getting stubborn about adding his sources to articles. Same thing happens when internet personalities get their articles nominated for deletion. (Not that I'm recommending that, I'm not, but its a similar reaction from the fanbase.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Despite my low edit count, I have been on Wikipedia for a while. And, unlike some users, I would never go and spam edit articles just to get Fantano's name out there. I am willing to have a discussion on the issue, because that's probably the only way that this issue will ever be resolved. I think that there are some instances, specifically with Angelic 2 the Core, where citing Fantano is reasonable. ThrillShow (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this. I personally don't see a point in adding the scores if they're not relevant just to prove a point, but the fact that anything he puts out is instantly labeled as "to avoid" takes it a bit too far for me. He's still someone whose job it is to review music, self-published or not. —WLM / ? 14:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone be against the inclusion of Anthony Fantano's review specifically on the page for Angelic 2 the Core? Fantano's review has over 600,000 views and his "Top-10 WORST ALBUMS OF 2016" has another 600,000 views, which far surpasses the album's popularity. ThrillShow (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Those who stand by WP:RS, probably. The fact that it's not there speaks for itself. I think it should be added, though. —WLM / ? 14:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I oppose it, on multiple grounds. He's currently classified as a source to avoid, and there isn't a consensus here to change that yet. Furthermore, how many views his review has is irrelevant - it has no bearing on his classification of being an RS or not. (Nor does your bizarre apples to oranges comparison of "a review is more popular than an album". What are you even comparing? Youtube views to album sales?) Honestly, I'm not even sure Angelic 2 the Core should have an article. It doesn't even have a Metacritic score, or an Allmusic review. It doesn't appear this album received much RS coverage at all. Not sure it passes WP:GNG/WP:NALBUM. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
That's kind of my point... Outside of Fantano's review, very few people had heard of or reviewed the album. I'm not entirely sure it meets the Wikipedia standard of notoriety either. ThrillShow (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Then your point about using Fantano as a source in this situation is entirely invalid. Subjectively claiming, with zero comparable metrics, that a review is more popular than the media it reviews, and then jumping to the conclusion that this is not only true, but it somehow proves that the source what Wikipedia classifies as reliable? How are we to believe that you understand how Wikipedia works when you propose something so conceptually nonsensical? That's ridiculous reasoning on any level, let alone Wikipedia policy. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Self-published information is not typically treated at the same level of importance as information published by a third party, but in this instance there are few (if any) reviews published by third-parties. From what I've read on the WP:RS page, some of Fantano's self-published reviews can be considered reliable because he was a critic published by a third party in the past. This isn't saying that he gets free reign to do whatever he wants, just that he was published in the past, so his reviews hold some semblance of importance. Because information on the album Angelic 2 the Core is difficult to find, finding an exact comparable metric for Fantano's review and the album would by definition be an apples to oranges comparison, so I'm sorry for making that comparison in the first place. ThrillShow (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
As @ThrillShow brought up, it seems unfair to other self-published reviewers to consistently include Fantano's rating of a record in the corresponding article. That being said, however, there are cases where his review is relevant to the album, helped popularise the artist, or even gets more traction than the artist themselves.
Spin might call him "today's most important music critic", but that doesn't mean that he should gain an unfair advantage. He remains self-published, and is therefore by definition not the most reliable source. That being said, however, I feel that he is influential enough to deserve better than a "source to avoid" status, and his time under the wing of established media outlets should help his case.
I also feel that, although there definitely are parts of the video where he missed the point or misinterpreted the discussion, his video on the subject will arguably be viewed in a negative light by default by some people here, because he is seen as "just a YouTuber". Sure, he might not be of the same calibre of the NMEs and Rolling Stones of the world, but I'd argue that some of his statements that are perceived as arrogant just come from a desire to be taken seriously. —WLM / ? 12:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The arrogance is an issue though - that's one of the reasons why we try to avoid self-published content - there's no editorial oversight to fact check these grand claims. Case in point, as someone else noted, in this very video, he made a claim to the effect that he was "the world's most popular music critic". It's baseless boasting like that hurts his case the most. To the same effect, if his reviews are truly affecting artists as you or he claims, then there should be other reliable sources taking note of this, and you'd mention it through that source. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
That claim also sort of rubbed me the wrong way, and sure, there are some things he could've done better or said differently if his ultimate goal is really to be recognised as a reviewer on Wikipedia. However, he presented the video as an address to his fans about something they brought up, and I don't think he specifically intended for it to be a call to be removed from the "sources to avoid" list as much as just a casual conversation type of video for the fans, even if it shows that he does want to be recognised as a legitimate reviewer and is somewhat frustrated with Wikipedia's policy on the matter.
That being said, I don't think we should let little missteps like these influence the discussion in a major way. Human beings are are prone to error, and major media outlets are not exempt from this, even with quality control. I don't think we should give him a pass because he self-publishes; I do think, however, that it's not fair towards self-published people that such a display of arrogance will weigh down more heavily on someone who works alone.
As for artists that he's helped popularise: Death Grips are a prime example — when Fantano rated The Money Store a ten, they were a fairly small act, and his channel's popularity helped boost their popularity. You're right. There's no reliable source for this. It's mentioned on the Death Grips subreddit, which indicates that some of the fans over there found the act through Fantano, but that isn't a reliable source. Disregard my point.
I have to say that some of the discussion here has managed to weaken my stance on the issue, now that I think of it. I still believe there's a larger problem at play here, though, and I feel that Fantano deserves to be recognised as a professional critic, or at least as someone whose reviews shouldn't necessarily be removed from Wikipedia in a militant manner; that point stands. —WLM / ? 13:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, there's been a large debate over the use of self-published sources at the Video Games WikiProject too, with Youtubers being very prominent in that field as well, but they've largely come to the same conclusion as well. Want to use a Youtube video uploaded by the officially IGN account? Sure, because IGN is a reliable source, and Youtube is just the medium for hosting the video - it's still been edited and reviewed by their editorial team. Want to use their staff's personal Youtube account? Nope. It no longer meets the RS standard. Honestly, if one wanted to allow for more self-published sourcing, it would probably have to be done on a Wikipedia-policy level, to change the actual sourcing policy, not just on a "per source level at the WikiProjects". This doesn't seem to happen because experienced editors don't usually have much interested in pushing for that - the ones pushing for that change are usually "fans pushing to support their specific favored source" rather than people actually interested in how Wikipedia actually functions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Would it be an option to change his status to something like this?

Anthony Fantano's reviews are self-published, and a review from an established source (as listed above) is strongly preferred. In the absence of a review from such a source, however, (or if the review is specifically relevant to the work in question,)[?] referencing a video of his might be appropriate, but this should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Fantano's reviews are trustworthy if they have been published by a third party.

This way, the suggestion would still mostly be "avoid", but the automatic removal of his reviews from articles isn't encouraged. Feel free to improve. —WLM / ? 18:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that this is the most fair argument. It's the middle-ground, and it would only apply to a very select few articles. ThrillShow (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I've already made it clear that I'm against this, for reasons explained above, (The Needle Drop has no editorial oversight, and he's prone to making exaggerated claims) so I'll let others chime in. Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: I agreed with you about this topic. I oppose adding The Needie Drop in the reviews section or any section at all, because his reviews are not supported by a third party. While I have nothing against Fantano, but YouTube is not an reliable source and adding self-published sites in Wikipedia are against the guidelines. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Clarification: YouTube is not the source at all, Fantano is. Either he is a RS and his reviews are reliable or they're not. The medium that Fanto elects to publish reviews are not the issue. Granted, if it were a publication with an editorial process, it would easier to say that Fantano's reviews meet RS. No idea if that's the case with Fantano's YouTube channel. Unlike a news broadcast that clearly has an editorial process and that is later published to YouTube, no such information is provided for Fantano. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fantano does employ several editors, but I'm not entirely sure what their positions are. According to this piece, he has at least one video editor and other editors whose positions are unknown. ThrillShow (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Edit: I found an article where one of Fantano's editors claims to be a "collaborator" and "managing editor" of TND YouTube channel and website. ThrillShow (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
And what are his credentials? What/where is their editorial policy? Sergecross73 msg me 02:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
His editor's don't seem to post very much information about themselves. That's about all I can find about them right now I'll let you know if I find any more info. ThrillShow (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I dont think there's any question about it - it's a man uploading his content straight to YouTube. Even his ardent supporters concede there's no editors or editorial oversight involved. They just want to argue that since he at one point worked with an editorial team at NPR, his YouTube stuff should be usable. Which is simply not how it works on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The part about there not being any editorial oversight isn't accurate. I'm the "managing editor" who wrote the article ThrillShow cited and I oversee just about every video that is posted to The Needle Drop. Part of my job is to screen the reviews and point out mistakes, which I either tell Anthony to fix or I do it myself. And often times it's me clicking the publish button. Moreover, Complex Media (as his MCN) also has access to his channel. You can reach me for more info at TND's Facebook page or by leaving a comment anywhere on the website. Appreciate the discussion. Austentnd (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If YouTube "stars" are making enough money off their pageviews that they can hire video editors and whatnot, would such things end up being classified as WP:RSes? That would lower WP's standards quite considerably. This should probably be brought up at a more visible venue, such as Wikipedia:Village pump, as it's likely to affect a lot of sources and articles in the future. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll agree with you there; this discussion has been beneficial, but getting the opinions of some of Wikipedia's higher-ups would really be useful! I believe that this discussion might be the start of something really good. ThrillShow (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Shall we move this to Village Pump then? It's probably for the best. —WLM / ? 11:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:BP (Band)

Could someone please check through and clean up this draft and resubmit it? (The original creator is no longer on Wikipedia.) Some of the dates are wrong and some of the citations do not substantiate, especially when there was more than one release of an album of the same title. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I made some formatting revisions. --Jennica✿ / talk 11:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Should all soundtrack albums be called "Foo (soundtrack)"

The Bodyguard: Original Soundtrack Album is the official and common name for that soundtrack album. However, occasionally the name has been moved to The Bodyguard (soundtrack), which is where it is now. The reasons for the moves have been WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY. Should we change all soundtrack albums to "Foo (soundtrack)" to comply with WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY, or should we use the name by which the album is most commonly known, per WP:COMMONNAME? See move discussion at Talk:The Bodyguard (soundtrack)#Requested move 6 July 2017. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I will just comment that I've always found it strange that the articles for the two biggest-selling soundtrack albums of the 1970s, one is titled Saturday Night Fever (soundtrack) and the other Grease: The Original Soundtrack from the Motion Picture... there doesn't seem much consistency there. Richard3120 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
That's the issue, really. I think there is a conflict between those users who want to use the official and common name, and those who want to use a concise version removing words such as "The Original Soundtrack from the Motion Picture", replacing them with "(soundtrack)". Those who want to use "(soundtrack)" argue that it is more consistent, though - like you - I don't see that consistency at present: I think it is more desired for, than achieved. It would be neater to have some form of consistency. As soundtrack albums are generally named after the film or musical, they need to be disambiguated from that film or musical. Our policy on this - WP:ATDAB - says that we should first use Natural disambiguation, which is "The Original Soundtrack from the Motion Picture", which also fits in with WP:COMMONNAME; however, as such titles can be long and awkward looking, others prefer to move down to Parenthetical disambiguation, which is "(soundtrack)" , which fits with WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE.
I think it would be helpful if we had a guideline saying which way is preferred, and we put that in WP:MOSALBUM. My own thoughts on the matter are that it is preferable to use the most common and natural title, as that fits in with reader expectation, and keeps the common name standard across the internet (we know that Wikipedia has an influence, and when we change a name, so, gradually, does the rest of the internet). SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Should video releases be in the same chronology as an artist's standard chronology?

I think that visual works, such as concert videos, films, or documentaries, should be a different chronology from audio-only releases, such as albums, EPs, compilations, etc. I'm wondering what others think. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Per {{Infobox album}} "In general, all albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain in order of release date" and we categorize these home video releases as "video albums" here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Video releases are not technically albums and do not belong in the general chronology. "Video albums" is a term used on Wikipedia for categorization purposes of such releases and not used in the general lexicon. It's really a entirely different medium for distribution than albums. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
In addition, I suspect that for many greatest hits albums released on both formats, the audio CD and the accompanying video/DVD were released on the same day, making the "previous album"/"next album" parameter a bit complicated. Very few of these video albums are separately notable, though. Richard3120 (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Most artist navboxes include albums, etc. (arranged chronologically in the template examples). Adding a second chronology to the album infobox is unnecessary. If an artist's preceding or next album is really that important to understanding the article album, it should be discussed in the text. Otherwise, it's just information for information's sake. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Consequence of Sound. Italics or no?

MOS:ITALICTITLE states "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized"

Nothing on Consequence of Sound or WP:ALBUM/SOURCE have it italicized. I am unsure. --Jennica✿ / talk 01:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: A periodical is a publication issued at regular intervals; Consequence of Sound is a periodical; periodicals should be italicized. The guideline says, medium of publication or presentation is not a factor. In my opinion it should be italicized. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible removal of Dutch certification parameter

Please see the discussion at Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Dutch certification entry – removal or not? about what to do about the template parameter for Dutch certifications. The official NVPI website which used to show all the Dutch certifications has been inactive now for almost two years, and the 400 or so song and album articles that use this template now just link to a series of pop-up ads when you click on the citation, which probably isn't good for Wikipedia or anybody's computer or mobile device. Richard3120 (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPR#NFCC #8 and Discographies

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPR#NFCC #8 and Discographies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

What to do with an article

I was trying to copyedit The Truth in Me which has had a 'tone' tag since December 2007. I found that the article was composed mostly of unsourced quotes. I couldn't find any sources by googling, so I moved the quotes to the talk page in hopes that someone else can. There isn't much left to the article except a track listing, and I haven't worked on album articles before, so I was hoping that someone could cast an eye over this and see if the article subject is notable. Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Leschnei: it'll probably just about scrape past notability. The links to AllMusic and Treble Zine aren't useful, as the AllMusic page only has a track listing and no prose or rating, and the Treble Zine review appears to be written by a person who is not a member of the staff, so that isn't valid either. However, there's a review on PopMatters here [12], and an interview with O'Donnell on eMusician talking about the album here [13], so I think those two sources will be enough to pass WP:NALBUM – there may be reviews as well in the print media from the time, most likely Q, Uncut or Mojo. Richard3120 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Richard3120:, thanks for the input. I'll see what I can scrape together from the two sources you listed. I don't have access to the hard copy sources, so I'll have to leave that to a future editor! Leschnei (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_54&oldid=1149601502"