Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 57

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60

Music sources discussion (part 2)

The discussion about altwire is incomplete: more evidence was asked for, but none supplied. However the discussion about Popcrush is complete, & has reached a conclusion, & found it is not a reliable website. -- llywrch (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

I'd like to start looking at the list again, getting more clear consensus on how we feel about certain sources. I'm going to try to start start up discussion here and there again. Please give your opinions in the sections below. Feel free to start up your own subsections on sources too - the more we talk about it, the more people may join in as well. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Altwire

Unresolved

Altwire is a website that keeps on coming up in newer releases for alternative rock albums. I keep removing it from albums reception sections, but I figured I should start a discussion on it to see if there's anything I'm missing, or if we can add it to the list of sources to stay away from.

  • Positives
    • They have an About Us page, which shows an established staff with dedicated roles.
  • Neutral
    • They've been around for 5 years. So not a new blog that popped up overnight, but not particularly established in the industry either.
  • Negatives
    • None of their writers have any credentials or education listed. Just names and titles. So its hard to tell if they have any credentials.
    • I'm not seeing any sort of editorial/review/ethics type policies of any type. There's no real sign of editorial oversight outside of a staffer who has the word "editor" in their job title.
    • Their about us page says "Interested in submitting content or becoming a writer for AltWire? I think that "or" is crucial. It seems to indicated that they accept submissions from people who aren't on the staff or have any intentions of being staff.

Overally, I'm leaning unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't think there is enough evidence for a reliable or unreliable classing. Perhaps the name of the editor and rest of the staff can be googled for researching their credentials and/or the website can be emailed to ask them to provide their credentials. Am a bit backlogged at present, so if anyone else can please do it? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I can try to Google the writers (and editor), but I must admit that I'm a bit new at vetting sources. What kind of credentials should I be looking for? — Miss Sarita 17:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Experience in journalism and/or experience in the music industry I think, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as far as credentials go, its usually looking for things like them having experience writing for other RS publications, or at least having an relevant education (College degrees in areas like Journalism, Writing, English, etc). Usually, reliable sources have this sort of info upfront, on their "About Us/Bio" pages, so chances are, it doesn't exist. If none of it is present, and staff have bios filled with things like "I'm a super fan of music", or no bio at all, its not usually a good sign. But sometimes people can find information on people through their Linked In account, or other places on the internet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Popcrush

Resolved

PopCrush has recently been challenged, so let's discuss that.

Prior, it had been classified as non-reliable. I think the only discussion I found on it when revamping the list was This 2012 discussion about it at RSN, where someone stated that they didn't really have editorial oversight. Any agreements or counterpoints? Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Upon my initial search, I'd have to agree. I'm not finding anything I need to find. I can't find an "About Us" page that shows their history, or their staff of editors/writers/etc. So it's hard to evaluate their standards or staff... Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe a RSN discussion can be started as that is where the experts are? I don't see how PopCrush is unreliable as they're a major publishing company with professional writers and they've been around for so long. Look on Google, there are many sites citing PopCrush in their articles. They also post quality and in-depth content and have their own Wikipedia article. My removal of PopCrush from the table is similar to "removing unsourced content" and thus the burden of proof is on you, the editor whose claim is challenged. KingAndGod 14:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • KingAndGod, No, in the RSN discussion 6 years ago, an editor evaluated it and stated they could find no evidence of editorial oversight or evidence of a reliable source. That has has been the status for years. The burden is on you to prove them wrong. (Your analogy is broken. Its not like "removing unsourced information" That would be the case if there was no prior discussion. But there was. Your action is more comparable to removing sourced information backed by a single source because you didn't believe the source to be true.) Please provide evidence of editorial oversight, dedicated staff, staff with credentials, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't find any "about us" to describe its editorial staff, although articles do have bylines and the writers are linked. There is no directory of all the writers. There is not senior editor. The closest is a "contact us". Having done a few reviews on RSN, I can say it would not meet with approval there any more than it does here. Its content is reliable when directly quoting the subject being interviewed, but no opinion or editorial comment should be accepted as reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's generally how we'd handle websites/scenarios like this over the years here or at WP:VG/S. A website is almost never considered reliable with all of those boxes left unchecked... Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
How does one expect to find the directory of all the writers in a media website? Their news articles include an author at the top and they have been around since 2011. How would you rate the reliability of a source like Allmusic that allows users or the public to "submit" their content for inclusion in their database? The source is generally considered reliable on Wikipedia but its standard appear to be worse than PopCrush's. KingAndGod 16:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
A directory of editorial staff is not unheard of. Indication in the byline that the writer is or is not staff is frequently done. Credentials supplied on the author's page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
We are not discussing AllMusic, but they clearly identify what content is from staff and what is user-supplied. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Really? It's...pretty standard fare for professional websites to have an "About Us/Staff Listing" type page. A good example would be here for the website USGamer, website here. They've got a staff listing here, where they detail the staff they have, their roles (Editor, staff writer, contributor etc) and their various credentials, like writing for other reliable websites. They've also got an editorial policy page, and a reviews policy page. Now, granted, they have it laid out better than many, but the more concerning part about PopCrush is that they don't seem to have any of the above. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's a list of their staff [9]. KingAndGod 17:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Have any of those staff members written an article within the past three years? I'm not seeing any published before three years ago. I also clicked on a handful of recent articles posted and none of them had the authors listed from the link above. Is there a more current/up-to-date source? I did a quick search and came up with nothing recent. — Miss Sarita 17:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed the same. This author hasn't written an article in 7 years even. Personally, I feel like the fact that their "staff list" is 3-7 years out of date raises a whole new level of concerns about the website, but the truth is, I don't think I've ever come across a website that did that unless it was a website that ceased publication entirely and I was looking at the archived version of it. Very bizarre. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
This discussion is going nowhere. I'm interested in starting an RfC here on whether PopCrush is reliable or not, I have already pointed out why it's reliable and it should be removed from the table because there is no evidence that it is unreliable. Merely not having information about their writers is not a valid reason. KingAndGod 06:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Your disposition confuses me. You seems so sure that it's an RS, yet relatively unaware of how we determine them in the first place. (About Us and editorial oversight/policy pages are extremely commonly discussed points in determining this sort of this, for example.) Regardless, feel free to look for further input, as you have no consensus for reliability here. WP:RSN may make more sense than an WP:RFC, but you're free to your choice as long as you stay away from WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Just leave a link here if you start discussing elsewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
How about Taste Of Country? 115.164.207.186 (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC) "What about..." (Sorry for miswording) 115.164.93.117 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Is PopCrush a reliable source, in regard to the above discussion? KingAndGod 15:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

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

undeclared paid editing on UK NOW albums

I apologise if I am in the wrong place. I have no interest in the music project, but I try to help out on the help desk (WP:HD). We received a "formal complaint" about the music NOW articles: see this permalink The complaint appears to relate to Now That's What I Call Music!, and specifically to the UK series. I looked at a very few of our articles for the albums. I see no assertion of notability (WP:NMUSIC). I feel that notability should be asserted and referenced to reliable sources for each album, or the album articles should be deleted. This is particularly important since the (anonymous) help desk entry asserts that the articles were created by paid editors (WP:PAID) who have not (apparently) declared their status.

I originally posted this on the music project, and Richard3120 reccommended that I post it here. I did to a bit of research. the IP user who posted the complaint and asserted paid editorship also tried to reverse some changes made by other editors who are converting these articles into redirects. Since I'm not an expert on album articles, my sole contribution here is to inform you that you are dealing with a paid editor. -Arch dude (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've had more than one conversation with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars about this subject, and it doesn't just apply to the NOW albums, there are other compilation series where articles have been made for every album in the series without any specific notability being demonstrated. I think we both agree that all the individual album articles should be redirected to the "container" article for the series as a whole... the problem is finding the time and energy to redirect so many albums. Richard3120 (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I've began the process of redirecting the UK articles after updating the discography section with information on release dates, chart peaks, and certifications from those articles. Some of the articles don't even have that much info with only a link to a screenshot of the album cover, so those are the ones I'm redirecting first. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

WhoSampled

The unreliable sources section states that consensus was met in a 2017 discussion, but said discussion is actually from 2012. Did a more recent discussion take place? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 15:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's an error and it should have said "2012 discussion", but nothing seems to have changed to me - their "about" page says "WhoSampled is open to everyone to submit information about a sample, cover song or remix"... it's still user-generated content, and no indication that the website's team can verify the accuracy of submissions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it was discussed more recently somewhere, but I think it was never updated correctly. Let me look. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz - do you recall this? I swear the situation was some newbie arguing in favor of it, but you and I told him it wasn't per WP:USERG, either this year or last. I think it was on one of the music related WikiProjects, though I can recall which one since I frequent a number of them. I guess it doesn't matter much, if we can't find it, we've basically got this one to use. It's a pretty clear cut case, and I can't imagine anyone successfully arguing in its favor here either. Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't recall it in detail, but it's user-generated data. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is what I was talking about. It was discussed in January 2018 at the Music WikiProject. Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Redlist

There is a stub article called Redlist that I find very confusing. It seems to be about an album named Ignorance, and Redlist is the group? But then why is the article title italicized? Should it be moved to Ignorance (album)? I am clueless about the subject, and hope someone here can make sense of the article. Thanks. NotARabbit (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. The title should be Ignorance (Redlist album) as there is already an album called Ignorance by another group, and it's in italics because all album titles are, as per the first item at MOS:ITALICTITLE. However, a renaming or move is probably moot here, because without any reliable sources this almost certainly fails WP:NALBUM and is a prime candidate for WP:AFD. Richard3120 (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This has now been PRODded and deleted. Richard3120 (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Notability

See this:

I don't know how they pass the WP:NMUSIC. Before taking the action (Afd), I wanted to show you that. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 04:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This Is Where Death Begins and What the Fuck Is Wrong with You People? are redirected per WP:NALBUM policy. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 16:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Update on removal of succession boxes

After the RfC consensus to remove succession boxes from song and album articles, Ronhjones set up RonBot for the task. Now, less than two months after first being raised as an issue, record chart succession boxes have been removed from over 8,000 articles. If some were missed, please let us know. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Requesting more input - album lists in "year in genre" articles

Hello all. I'm looking for more input on how we handle album lists in the "year in music" articles. Specifically, its about if we should require a reliable source to verify an album is of a certain genre when we're listing them in "year in music" articles like 2018 in heavy metal music, or if its enough that the artist is generally considered to be part of the genre. It's a conceptual question, it's not about bickering about genre or genre warring.

See here to read more. Input there would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It's entirely incomplete. Without discussion, say of major awards for the albums listed, a category is a better way of addressing this sort of thing.
The discussion isn't really about completeness, its more about inclusion criteria. If Metallica announces a polka album for late 2018, do we add it to the list on the 2018 in heavy metal music album's list because Metallica is a metal band? Or exclude it because a polka album has no bearing on the world of heavy metal in 2018. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
What are the page view counts for these articles? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I was looking into this the other day, out of curiosity. The page views vary wildly. The jazz one averages like 10-20 views a day, while the hip hop one is in the 1,000s. The heavy metal one is in the middle, in the hundreds I believe. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Just giving this one a bump - its been open for 2 weeks and there still hasn't been all that much input yet. I'm afraid the wording may have scared people off. This isn't yet another of these endless "genre warring issues". It's a conceptual question about the inclusion criteria for these album lists that seem to appear in most of these "(Year) in (music genre)" articles. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are we prioritizing AllMusic for the critic score infoboxes?

Guys, I want to have this discussion. I keep seeing "AllMusic" being put in the critic score infoboxes, can someone provide a reasonable explanation for why we're using their scores instead of a more relevant journalistic outlet? --Bobtinin (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bobtinin: Almost every other articles have AllMusic on top of the album ratings template, it's even in the guidelines (See Template:Album ratings and WP:ALBUM/SOURCE). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
It only says it's a reliable source, which I don't doubt. My question is why should we be posting *their* score when there are bigger, more relevant outlets? --Bobtinin (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Their critic reviews have a consensus for being considered a reliable source, and they're one of the most prominent, prolific review websites in existence, often offering reviews for acts that are hard to find and/or otherwise locked away in hardcopy/paper print sources. That's...all there is to it. Sergecross73 msg me 03:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Well I would never be opposed to using them as a source if there isn't any other, but objectively there are a lot more newspapers and outlets which are more relevant, and I think they should be used instead. --Bobtinin (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Its hard to comment any further without giving any examples of what you're talking about. You haven't given any examples of what other sources should be used, or any objective criteria you're talking about as to why one should be used over another. Sergecross73 msg me 03:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bobtinin: Just because AllMusic is a online music magazine doesn't make it unreliable or less important than Complex. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
You have a whole list of sources already, you don't need me to tell you them. All I'm saying is outlets like Consequence of Sound or The Guardian should have priority over AllMusic. As for what you say about Complex, it garners a lot more attention than AllMusic, so it should be placed in its place if given the opportunity. And to be fair, I shouldn't single AllMusic out, I'm sure there's other sources which have been given unfair priority. --Bobtinin (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bobtinin: "All I'm saying is outlets like Consequence of Sound or The Guardian should have priority over AllMusic." Why? The Guardian is a general-interest newspaper: why would it be a better source to prioritize over a dedicated music review site...? Also, why are we even talking about prioritizing them at all? The encyclopedia is big and can contain a lot of reviews, so I don't see a situation where Guardian reviews are being deleted in favor of AMG... This is a solution without a problem. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You still haven't even explained why you're arguing this. One what grounds or criteria should we be focusing on encouraging or discouraging use exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 04:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bobtinin: I'm gonna have other editors join in this discussion. Let's see if they agreed with you or not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
AllMusic is often listed first because we arrange the critical reviews in alphabetic order. If a particular review source were to be "prioritized" then AllMusic would certainly be among those considered the most reliable. I don't see any reason to change the current practice. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Listen, don't kid yourselves, prioritization is definitely a thing when it comes to the critic score infoboxes. As it says in fine-print, you can only fit TEN reviews in there. I think we need to have a discussion to decide how we prioritize these outlets, because there is a lack of consistency between articles when it comes to this particular infobox. I guess that's what I'm trying to point out. --Bobtinin (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
In cases where we approach 10 reviews in the box, then they should be balanced between what the scores are, how recent they were, if they were from different types of sources (old media versus new media, American versus European, academic versus popular, etc.) that all add up to give a comprehensive overview that isn't slanted. I agree that in those cases, there are no clear guidelines for what to choose and that sometimes AMG is a good option and sometimes not. But that is not really a concern for some Doris Day album from 1956 where we aren't liable to find 10 reviews by reliable outlets ever. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just because they're in alphabetical order means you need to use/keep the first ten that show up in the alphabet. It's not used prominently because it's starts with the letter A, nor would it be completely omitted if it were called "ZeeMusic" or something like that. It's just a popular music website that does a lot of reviews. Sergecross73 msg me 04:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree Justin, so since there are no guidelines it's a bit unclear. For example, if I'm looking at a hip-hop album, should I prioritize a review from a very popular hip-hop website over a site like AllMusic? I would think so, but perhaps other people wouldn't agree with that because AllMusic has become prioritized in these boxes. --Bobtinin (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I’m sorry that I’ve arrived at the party a bit late. AllMusic is a reliable source. It‘s no less reliable that Rolling Stone or another print media. It’s not less reliable than most large-market news publications (USA Today, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, The Globe & Mail, UK or Australian papers) but to suggest that just because it’s in print makes it more important than AllMusic is laughable. If we get to ten reviews, we should cut the crap. We should always keep AllMusic and if there’s a MetaCritic score, eliminate any that are duplicated in their score. If there’s no MetaCritic score, eliminate smaller papers before eliminating AllMusic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Walter, no one is questioning the reliability of AllMusic. What I'm questioning is why it's okay to prioritize their review over a major hip-hop outlet or a major newspaper when editing the critic score infobox for a hip-hop album. Same goes for any other genre really. --Bobtinin (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
That's a good question: a specialized source would be preferable, which is what I was trying to say above about The Guardian. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, I will keep this in mind in the future then. Another thing I'd like to ask about is if the reviews that are posted in the box have to be an accurate reflection of the Metacritic score. So if the score is 80, then the reviews posted in the box would be around 4 stars or "B", instead of posting a 2 star review or an F rating. Is this the correct way of doing it? --Bobtinin (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
They don't need to be pegged to one another: the box should just give an overview of what is the consensus. If an album is generally well-liked, cherry-picking four negative reviews to give a slanted perspective is not helpful for readers. (Un)fortunately, this is one of those things that seems pretty empirical and straightforward but really has some wiggle room. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I had to ask because I keep coming across negative scores in those boxes for albums that had good/excellent reviews in general. I will try to fix this whenever I come across it, thank you for answering my questions. --Bobtinin (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bobtinin: Don't be sorry--it's good to raise questions or concerns! And it's also okay to have a dissenting view in the reviews table, just don't exclusively include reviews that would give a false impression of the consensus of critics. E.g. I'm sure someone liked Kevin Federline's album but it's (almost) universally panned. Alternately, Rolling Stone is notorious for giving middling reviews to Led Zeppelin in the 1970s and then revising their opinion later--that's important information to capture. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
We don't exclude AllMusic for a review for a hiphop album just because we have a review from Rapzilla any more than we exclude it for a because we have a review from Spin. I want to be clear that my perception of your question is that you feel it's inferior to niche press. They have reviewers in niche markets, who have credibility in those markets. As an editor in one of those niche markets I can say that the AllMusic reviews are often better than the niche press as I feel the niche press seems to want to try to promote the work or have unnecessarily close ties with the subjects they're writing about. For that reason, I rely more on AllMusic than I do niche press. So the question is: are you discounting AllMusic because it's not (fill-in the blank)?
As for why it's usually first, we sort the reviews alphabetically. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think AllMusic has the same level of exposure as major newspapers or magazines, and I certainly don't think they have any niche in any specific genre since they cover them all. That's why I would discount their reviews in favor of certain other ones. --Bobtinin (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I now understand your problem with the source: you don't understand it. It has specific reviewers for fringe genres. The reviewers for mainstream pop will not likely review the dream pop albums, and hip hop, metal and punk reviewers are generally specialized. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bobtinin: That's just your opinion. AllMusic is just as reliable as any other website, just because it is a online magazine doesn't mean you have to remove it off the template. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Right, cause you know everyone that works at AllMusic. Also it's not my "opinion", do you legitimately think that "AllMusic" has the same exposure as outlets like The Guardian or Rolling Stone? I would hope not. --Bobtinin (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bobtinin: Actually it's is your opinion. You clearly don't like AllMusic so you remove off the template because you don't think it's an reliable source enough, don't remove websites you don't like per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
There's a reason why I asked what I did. If we didn't base which outlets we choose to put in there on exposure, then what's stopping me from putting a lesser known outlet like "Tiny Mix Tapes" into the critic score infobox of a major hip-hop album? Nothing. So no, this isn't some personal vendetta against AllMusic, it just happens to be the outlet I'm picking on because you seem adamant on keeping it in the articles you run. So how about you take some of your own advice instead of reverting my legitimate edits? --Bobtinin (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bobtinin: You mean those edits [10] [11], there are problems with those edits. 1. There no reason to removed AllMusic off the template. 2. There was no consensus of AllMusic should be removed. 3. The reviews aren't properly order in alphabetical order at all. If you don't know, Tiny Mix Tapes is classified as an unreliable source (see WP:ALBUMAVOID), so there is a reason why that website was removed off the template, while AllMusic is an reliable source. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
You still don't understand after this entire discussion? I replaced AllMusic with a specialized hip-hop specific source, and as Justin confirmed, that's a positive thing. There's no consensus that it should stay there either, and we won't know until we start a separate discussion on that article. I did put it in the right alphabetical order, because "The" starts with a T, and unless you don't understand kindergarten English, that comes after "S". I know Tiny Mix Tapes is unreliable, I just didn't know it was flagged as such. But my point remains, because you can replace it with plenty of other sites: "Pretty Much Amazing", "The 405", "Drowned In Sound", the list goes on. And I didn't pull those names out of the air, they're used by Metacritic. I don't think we should give those smaller sites the same weight as a major newspaper or magazine, how do you keep missing this point? --Bobtinin (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bobtinin: Koavf didn't explicitly stated that you should remove AllMusic off the template, since he have articles probably on his watchlist that have AllMusic on the template, like The Unforgettable Fire, A Love Supreme and Electro-Shock Blues. "The" do start with a T but it's order in Wikipedia's guidelines (in WP:ALBUM/SOURCE it's is order in that fashion) so editors just following the rules here. And just because AllMusic isn't a specialized hip-hop specific source doesn't mean you can cherry picking one genre of music, any publication of every genre should be included in the template as long it is reliable. In my honest opinion, I think you should start an RfC to see who fully agree with your opinion on this topic. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I favor using more popular or veteran publications that cover a broader array of genres rather than those specializing in just one; I imagine the former would be more critical and objective than the latter of a certain genre's musical work, using judgment and standards informed by a wider outlook of popular music. And Alexa's data on a website's web traffic is an easy way to determine which to choose; AllMusic would certainly beat out most. Dan56 (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Magazines like the Guadian are in fact more known than AllMusic but that's because they cover a number of different subjects. AllMusic is very reliable and you can get a good grasp of an overview of an album. Some albums only have AllMusic as their source because at that time, there were no one publications and not everyone has paper cuts dating back to the 60's. There is no reason to replace AllMusic, of course Guardian, Drown in Sound, RS and so many others are in fact reliable. I mean if there is a question of why everyone uses it is because they do reviews of niche markets and artist that you won't find in mainstream publications and there is nothing wrong with it and honestly Binksternet said it all. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
AllMusic began as a series of books, including All Music Guide to Jazz, All Music Guide to the Blues, and several more genres. The artist profiles and album reviews were written by some well-known music critics and authors, including Richie Unterberger, Stephen Thomas Erlewine, Cub Koda, and Bill Dahl. Many of the articles published in the guides were added to the AllMusic website, which replaced the published guides. AllMusic clearly meets the reliable source criteria; I don't understand why it is being questioned. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
As Ojorojo pointed out, AllMusic is a reliable entry for album articles being written by well-known and established journalist and music critics. Also, alphabetically AllMusic almost always comes out to be the first entry in the table. Find this questioning of such a reliable source as pretty pointless. —IB [ Poke ] 16:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering if any of the three people above me actually read the whole thread. Not once have I questioned the reliability of AllMusic, I am talking about prioritization when it comes to the critic score box, as you can only fit 10 reviews. I'm effectively saying, AllMusic should not get a spot there by default if there is a better source that can replace it. It's not that deep. --Bobtinin (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The AllMusic book series produced an All Music Guide to Hip-hop: The Definitive Guide to Rap & Hip-hop[12] and some of the authors also published Old School Rap and Hip-hop.[13] So, they may be considered a "specialized hip-hop specific source" as well as for other genres. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
You think a couple of books from the early 2000s puts them on the same level as large outlets that dedicate all of their coverage to hip-hop? I don't think so. --Bobtinin (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Look, we get it, you'd prefer to use other sources than AllMusic. And while you're editing something where there's no one pushing for its use, you're free to avoid it. But otherwise, your little push here to lessen its usage has garnered no consensus whatsoever. We're getting close to WP:STICK levels here at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. It's not really that I don't like AllMusic as a source, I'd be perfectly fine with using it if there's space for it, and if their score reflects the critic consensus. I just came into conflict with someone over this particular source, so I was just using AllMusic as an example. --Bobtinin (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
You have it completely backward Bobtinin. If there isn't room, cut something other AllMusic. Whether it's for an album in the genre of hiphip, triphop, Baltimore club, bounce, Brick City club, crunk, freestyle rap, homo hop horrorcore, Jerkin', Miami bass, nerdcore, trap or any genre where a review for an article exists on AllMusic because its reviewers are more credible than a niche reviewer will ever be. I'm using your genre as an example but it goes for all genres. I don't care how you came to remove AllMusic, just don't do it in the future because you seem to be in conflict with the entire community at this point. In cases I've observes in the past, that hasn't ended well for editors on the non-community consensus side of those conflicts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I respect the consensus, don't worry. As to whether their reviewers are the best, well that's down to opinion. In the future, I think we should have a policy for these boxes to try and respect the critic consensus by putting reliable reviews in there that match it. I think that is a better way than keeping it unclear. Only reason I brought this up is because AllMusic had a score that didn't match the consensus at all, so I thought it wasn't fair for them to have a place in that box. --Bobtinin (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bobtinin: If you curious who added those reviews in the template in the first place, go ask Holiday56 he mostly edit the album ratings template by adding those sources. He might response to you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@TheAmazingPeanuts: Thanks man, I'll try asking him about it. --Bobtinin (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Walter Görlitz that Botinin is going at it backwards. We will never be choosing reviews to match the Metacritic score; instead, we will be choosing reviews that are considered the most authoritative or the most reliable. A review that gets into particulars about the musical style is preferable to one that labels the music without explanation. A review that is written by a professional music critic is preferable to one that is written by a student journalist or new writer. Bobtinin is giving undeserved authority to a largely automated scoring system. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It's too bad everyone's piling on Bobtinin here. I've long thought the prioritizing of AllMusic has been rather obnoxious. We see the AllMusic review coming first in so, so many articles, even for music that predates the AllMusic authors by decades (often giving the impression that the review there represents a work's initial reception). AllMusic is not a be-all end-all go-to authority, nor does it represent a critical consensus, but that's the impression far, far too many of our articles give, in grotesque violation of WP:WEIGHT—quoting it (often at length) even in the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees it. Also Metacritic isn't an "automated" scoring system Bink, they post scores that are given by the authors themselves and then compile them. As to the credibility of the authors, that's a subjective topic and purely based on opinion. The most objective thing to do would be to use reliable reviews which match the score to accurately represent the critic consensus. --Bobtinin (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Metacritic also weight scores, a seven from Magazine X, will be worth more than a seven from Magazine Y. - X201 (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
True, but Metacritic also analyzes the quality and stature of each outlet when weighing their scores. --Bobtinin (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Curly Turkey, I just wanted to say that in the cases where AllMusic reviews albums that pre-date its existence, we don't have much choice about using it, as few publications (either music magazines or newspapers) gave star ratings before the mid-1980s. Hence AllMusic's ratings of these records tends by default to become a legacy "critical consensus" rating. I've sometimes wondered whether it would be a good idea to have two ratings boxes, one for contemporary reviews and one for legacy reviews, to get a better idea how critical standing has changed over the years - the current mix of ratings from different time periods in the box doesn't show how an album's reception can change from "universal apathy" on release to "universal acclaim" in 2018. Richard3120 (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Note also that AllMusic ratings are not necessarily static. According to the AllMusic FAQ page they can change over time.[14]. The ratings are independent of the reviewer's assessment/comments. It is the editors of the site who rate the albums. Just an FYI. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This appears to be for user ratings, not professional ratings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea Richard, I definitely agree with doing that. It gives a better picture of how the album was received in the long run. --Bobtinin (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Bobtinin: it's just something I have thought about, but I'm sure other editors would disagree with it, and I can see it wouldn't be without its issues... for example, for artists that were relevant in the 1980s and are still relevant now, like U2 or Madonna, Boy and Like a Virgin are clearly retrospective reviews on AllMusic, while Songs of Experience and Rebel Heart are obviously contemporary reviews published at the time of the albums' release... so at what point during the artists' careers did the reviews change from legacy to contemporary? Richard3120 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I think any review that's written at least a year after the release of the album would count as a "legacy" review. Any respectable critic wouldn't wait after the vast majority of critics have released their reviews to release their own, so it's only fair to count it as such. --Bobtinin (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, my point was, we don't know which of those artists' reviews were written when the album came out, and which were written a year or more after the album's release, so we can't tell which reviews are contemporary and which are legacy, unless we go back to the original books. Richard3120 (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
On top of that, AllMusic reviews are undated—a particular review could be from 2005, and we would have no way of knowing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
You can GoogleBooks search--or Amazon.com's preview of the allmusic books--for the album review in question; if it was not published originally in one of the books--for which you would have the date--then it would have most likely been published around the time of the album's release. Dan56 (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
We can make that assumption? Of course not. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Richard3120: separate boxes is an interesting idea, though not without its own problems—what about a blues artist who was ignored in their own time, then "rediscovered" in the 1960s? Do we have three (or more) boxes?
I can't disagree strongly enough that AllMusic ratings "tend by default to become a legacy 'critical consensus' rating[s]". They're not presented as such, nor could they plausibly be. I have to apologize, though, as I was complaining less about the star ratings in the boxes than about the use of AllMusic in general, especially in the prose. Perhaps I should have started a new discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Treble Zine

Don't see it listed anywhere, and I'd like to use it for an album I have at GAN (namely Monster (R.E.M. album)). Found LinkedIns on Editor-In-Chief (and apparent founder) Jeff Terich and their Photo Editor Candice Eley if that helps. The link in question I wanted to use was written by a certain Butch Rosser, who I can't seem to find anything on.

What is the verdict on this?

dannymusiceditor oops 01:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? Anything? This place has been a bit more quiet than I've more recently been accustomed to. dannymusiceditor oops 23:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, outside of everyone coming to the defense of Allmusic in one of these discussions, many, including a few of my own discussions, have dropped dead too. Many music AFDs have been quiet too. Regardless, I’ll try to look into this for you. Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
+ They’ve been around since 2003.
+ Their about us page does establish a team of editors, goes into their policy/stance on doing reviews, etc. There’s a clear system set up.
- Their origin story is “a bunch of friends talking music”, which is not the typical starting story for a professional publication. They said they’ve evolved over the years, though it’s not exactly clear what they’re referring to, other than having a couple editors and writers.
- It’s seems that, after 13 years, they still don’t have any paid roles. While being paid isn’t a requirement, professional publications, you know, usually ′′employ′′ people, you know.
- The website itself at least lists zero credentials of anyone. No bios at all really. Just names.
All in all, it’s a hard call. I feel like one could use it to make an everyday statement in a random article without causing a stir, but as is, I don’t think it could stand up to the scrutiny of a detailed/picky GA reviewer. Sergecross73 msg me 00:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I kind of feel the same way - it's clearly now more than just a blog run by a bunch of music enthusiasts, but it wouldn't be my first port of call if I was looking for reviews and information.
As for the level of activity, this is probably still one of the more active WikiProjects, even if there are only four or five regular contributors... it's a well known fact that Wikipedia activity has decreased dramatically in recent years. Personally, I still take part in a lot of music-based AfDs, but I generally avoid all involvement in genre discussions - it's a pet hate of mine. I'm also trying to spend more time on actual content creation, because I enjoy that the most, and there are a few albums I really want to take to GA, and I feel in the last year I've spent way too much time on "admin" and maintenance work. Richard3120 (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

A case of a TOOSOON album that I would like to be investigated

There's an upcoming album that was announced a few days ago, Trench (album). Nothing was known about the album. Editors copied information about from the band's article and threw it into a background section. However, nothing is known about the album save for a release date, album name and two singles that should be on the album. Pop music fans keep creating articles before the albums are notable as is explained in Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law, and at first blush, there are a lot of references, but not enough to sustain info about the album. So it should be a redirect, except the fans kept restoring it, so take it to AfD, and now the fans are saying "it's notable" without supplying any notability criteria that it actually meets. Short of making me an admin who can lock articles (which isn't going to happen with my block record) what can be done to stop this sort of speculative addition of content? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, with as much coverage as something as high profile as that is getting with its announcement, I wouldn’t fight it. It’s worth the time or effort to fight it. I’d just work on maintaining a well written stub. Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. Might be worth it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Serge, Walter - yes, it is annoying that overenthusiastic fans create album articles before they have anything to put into them, but we all agree that in a couple of months Trench will certainly be notable, and it's not worth spending time deleting something we know will need to be recreated in a few weeks. I don't think we'll ever be able to stop fans creating articles ahead of time, unfortunately. Richard3120 (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Ghost Cult Magazine

Ghost Cult Magazine could be reliable. ~SML • TP 01:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussions usually do better when you attempt to explain why or why not... Sergecross73 msg me 02:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC) >
  • Comment I have seen this reference before, and last I saw it, a group discussion had come to the conclusion it was unreliable. I cannot remember if I participated. It may have been a GAN I witnessed attempt to use this reference, and the reviewer objected? I can't be certain. I'll take a more in depth look soon. dannymusiceditor oops 04:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The biographies have only three people, the chief editor, one associated editor, and one contributor, but it also says that more biographies are coming soon. Though the biographies don’t go too in depth, it does talk a little about their backgrounds. ~SML • TP 13:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

...What part of that makes you think they may be a reliable source...? Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
It apparently has more staff biographies coming up, so maybe we should wait. ~SML • TP 15:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, generally professional websites have that stuff up and running when the launch the website. They launched it back in 2012. And unprofessional websites often have comments like that listed for a long time without actually following through. Not sure how long they've had that listed... Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Leaning unreliable -
  • The website is a Wordpress blog, which is almost always a sign of it being a self-published, amateur blog. Being self-published usually isn't for being an WP:RS - see WP:SPS and WP:USERG.
  • Their "About Us" page of the website makes the claim of them being staffed by "of experienced writers, seasoned music journalists, and concert photographers all over the world", but then doesn't elaborate on that all. There's no mention of who the staff is, or what their credentials are.
  • They have a very brief staff page here. Much like the "About Us" page, there's vague statements made without anything concrete being established. Only three people are listed, (with the promise of "more to follow") and all three follow the same format; they mention 20+ years of industry experience, without mentioning what it was. If they had worked for other reliable publications, that could help their case for reliability. But no other publications or credentials are listed other than writing for Ghost Cult Magazine itself.
  • I didn't see anything on editorial policy/oversight/things of that nature either.
  • I'd be open to reconsider if someone digs up more information, and finds that, for example, the founder user to write for Rolling Stone or something like that, but as is, it's hard to support. I'd also like to hear what DannyMusicEditor's findings were too, if he gets the chance. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Wordpress blog. That rings familiar. I believe that was the chief complaint. I'm still not finding exactly where that was - it may have been an edit summary argument. dannymusiceditor oops 16:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Assessment for "Future" Albums in Record Company Limbo

I often do assessments for this Project and have some thoughts about the use of the Future class. That class is indeed useful for NEAR-future albums in which the release date, track list, and other necessary info has been confirmed. But there seems to be a growing group of so-called future albums, especially in rap/R&B, that were "coming soon" a long time ago (even years ago) but have fallen into limbo with no confirmed release date in sight, often because of record label shenanigans. The granddaddy of them all is 50 Cent's Street King Immortal which has been in limbo for 7 years with nothing on the horizon. Here are some more: The Baddest (Davido album), Music Is the Weapon, Fantasea II: The Second Wave, El Disco Duro, Tha Carter V, The One (Trina album), The Queen Is Here.
......I was able to find those easily because they are currently assessed as Future but I suspect that there are many more. In any case, I propose that the Future assessment class is inappropriate for such albums because they may never move out of that category, and they appear in tables that are of interest to editors (like me) who follow "coming soon" albums to document their actual release. I am unsure of a solution -- perhaps a new assessment class or maybe a policy to remove such articles from the Albums Project until they actually become real-life albums. Neither is perfect but I thought I'd put it up for discussion. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless the albums are outright cancelled, I don't see how we could justify removing the "future" class. The problem of commercial products being delayed so much that their release is in doubt is something that happens throughout the project. Generally, we don't label products as "canceled" until we've got hard first party confirmation or reliable third party coveraging asserting it as pretty likely. I don't see any other way of handling it besides essentially this. Anything else would likely lead to bad subjective calls by individuals, edit wars breaking out, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 03:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed – I understand the frustration at albums being labelled as "future-class" seemingly forever, but I think of an album like Chinese Democracy... years before its eventual release, there was plenty of information available to create a decent article, including the recording process, some of the track titles, the musicians involved, and of course the album title. Removing an article like that in the years leading up to its release would have resulted in re-recreations, because editors could justifiably argue that multiple reliable sources existed regarding the album – I think Sergecross73 is right when he says you would just end up with edit wars and deletion/recreation arguments. There are other albums like Wildflower where enough information was available years before release to be able to make a stub article. Richard3120 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Good points guys, but please note that I did not recommend deleting such album articles, but possibly reclassifying them in some fashion that does not exist now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Right, I had meant that, the same issues that occur in deletion/merger/content discussions would conceptually rise here as well. If we can't source the info in the article in regards to whether or not its "canceled" or "upcoming but just delayed", how can we hope to make a classification judgement on it? Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Another good point, but we already classify an album as "future" based on sources that merely speculate that it will be released someday. Your concern is about speculation that it won't be released someday, which does not seem too different to me. I suppose that my initial point in this thread can be boiled down to the meaning of the word "future". Cry Pretty (album) has a "future", does Street King Immortal have one? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
We classify them as future because the last word on the subject was that a reliable source said it was still going to be released. We can't just speculate after X amount of time "Oh, its been a bit, looks like its no longer coming". You can personally doubt it all you want, but it's not speculative to say that something like Tha Carter V is a future release. We say its a future release because third party sources publish stories from musicians and music label execs say its still in the works. And if we did start delving into what you're suggesting, that's what's going to start up edit wars and disputes. At what point do you stop calling it a future release? After its first delay? Second? Once its been delayed a year? Two years? If you keep it subjective, there's going to be disputes, and the only way to keep it objective is to go by reliably sourced accounts like I mentioned above. Sergecross73 msg me 21:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Red Bull Music Academy

When I research electronic instruments online, the Red Bull Music Academy turns up a lot.

As I see Andrzejbanas brought up on a separate matter back in 2014, its writers include Jason Gross (see [15]) who has written for publications including Village Voice (from 1998 to 2013), PopMatters (2005-2013) Time Out, Spin (2006-2010), etc.

Is it reliable? Popcornduff (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I know WP:VG/S considers their video game/esports division reliable. As long as their under the same umbrella, which I assume they are, and combining that with what you said above, I think I'd consider them reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I've used them as a source before for the Escape album. I didn't see any issue with using them then, they seem to have credentials despite the hokey Red Bull namesake. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
That's good to know - I've avoided using it in the past because I wasn't sure of its reliability, but it's full of great information about electronic instruments. Thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Compilation albums

Are compilation albums notable even if they're generic collections of songs without any original material and unrelated to the original artist? About one third of the UK series of Now That's What I Call Music has been deleted for lacking notability, and it's not clear to me if the articles are notable in their own right. (I'm leaving this here because there's probably someone else here who's better informed than I am.) Jc86035 (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Jc86035, I've had discussions about this issue with another editor and we are both of the opinion that they aren't... it's a case of getting round to merging any relevant information and redirecting the individual articles, but with 100 Now albums to deal with, it's a time-consuming process. Richard3120 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Rocknuts

I'm doing a GA review on Emo, and would like input on the use of Rocknuts as a source. This page is used to source "Emo pop (also known as emo pop punk) is a subgenre of both emo and pop punk". Rocknuts isn't listed in the WP:ALBUMS sources page. It does apparently pay its contributors, which is a good sign. Any opinions on whether this is a reliable source? Or does anyone have a better sources for the sentence in question? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say unreliable. Right off the bat, they literally say in the link above “we don’t care about your credentials”. It sounds like they’ll publish just about anyone as along as they “love rock music”, so it sounds far more like a fan site/enthusiast type thing. I also don’t believe they have much of a place in the music industry - I’ve been writing pretty heavily about rock music these last few years, and I don’t really ever recall coming across them. Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Album ratings

Is there any page where I can find all known rating publishers like AllMusic? I'm interested in these non-english publishers especially. Eurohunter (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Eurohunter: the best you can probably find is Acclaimed Music (www.acclaimedmusic.net), but be careful, not all of the publications that it lists are considered RS by Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Category sort keys for MTV Unplugged albums

The albums listed in Category:MTV Unplugged albums, many of which are titled Unplugged or MTV Unplugged and are disambiguated by artist, had all been sorted by artist regardless of album title. However, albums with article titles not stating the artist were also sorted by the artist's name—for example, In Concert/MTV Plugged under S for Springsteen, and Live Box under B for Björk. This seems confusing if you don't already know whose albums those are.

I think listing the albums alphabetically by artist would be better handled through a list, and not forcing the category to list items in an unexpected order, so I changed the sort keys so that albums would sort by album title, then by artist name in the disambiguation when present (for example, MTV Unplugged (Tony Bennett album) followed by MTV Unplugged (Mariah Carey EP)). After I did this Koavf pointed out that the albums had been sorted the previous way for years, and asked if I had consensus for my changes. So: how should the albums be sorted? Trivialist (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Input request: Blunderbuss release date and release history

I'm planning on being bold and making some changes to Blunderbuss (album) regarding its release date and release history. That being said, these changes aren't really ideal, primarily because of the presence of contradictory sources and some complications caused by the date the album became temporarily available for free iTunes streaming. I've come up with ways of dealing with these issues, but some input would definitely be helpful here, especially if anyone disagrees and/or has a better way of dealing with this. The discussion can be found here. I'm linking it here primarily because I don't expect that anyone will respond otherwise, so any input is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 07:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Contradictory sources are fine: that's actually good information to have in one place. Remember, we don't need to have absolute truth here, just what is verifiable. If multiple sources contradict each other, it is a good thing to point that out in a central repository of information (just like how fake folk etymologies belong at Wiktionary and misattributed quotes at Wikiquote). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Fan interviews

What is the position on interviews conducted by fans and hosted on fansites?

Example here. This is an interview conducted with a member of Radiohead by a fan; the fan put the transcript (and recording) on his fansite. It has information I would love to add to Wikipedia articles but I assume we can't use it as a reliable source as it has no editorial oversight. Any suggestions? Popcornduff (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a regular here but I wouldn't use the source; unfortunately I see no way to be confident that the fan hasn't edited it away from what was really said. Unlikely for any one interview, but as a class this sort of thing can't be regarded as reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this is about correct. Sometimes people add this sort of stuff, and I try to WP:IAR look the other way if its really good info and not damaging or anything, but it would never hold up in a content dispute or a GA review or anything. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should album track listings be removed from infobox song?

A RfC has been opened at WT:SONGS#RfC: Should album track listings be removed from infobox song?. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Tour dates in album articles

(Reposted since no one responded at WT:WPMUSIC.) Is it acceptable to include full tour dates in an album article, for a non-notable tour undertaken after the release of that album (e.g. Wake Up (The Vamps album))? Jc86035 (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's okay to mention some of the brief overview stuff (rough timeframe spanned, country/continents spanned, a notable act they toured with, etc) but not full listings of every show, no. (Also, WP:ALBUMS is definitely the most active of the music related WikiProjects. I recommend asking here whenever its even loosely related to albums.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: This is briefly addressed in WP:ALBUMSTYLE#Touring. In the Vamps case, the only ref is their own website. Readers would benefit more from concert reviews by secondary sources. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ojorojo and Sergecross73: Thanks. I've removed the tour dates from both Wake Up (The Vamps album) and Night & Day (The Vamps album). Jc86035 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Disagree: tours are frequently promotional vehicles for albums or the recording dates for a live album. There is no problem with listing full dates if there is not enough material to spin it off into its own article. If we have set lists, reception of shows, info about the design and changes of dates, etc. then it's an article of its own. If all we have is "X went on tour to... [table with venues]", that's fine and proper. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not how I've generally observed or enforced things in album articles I write or maintain. That sounds more like the job of Setlist.fm and/or a musician's marketing team than something an encyclopedia would host straight up... Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm coming to the party late again. Koavf's take is close to what I was going to say. If there is coverage of the tour and reviews, etc., then it makes sense to have a stand-alone article rather than include it in the album article.
Think of it the other way around. If you were at an AfD (or AfR) for a tour article that contained nothing more than tour dates and a set-list, I assume that the minimal content would be merged and a redirect would be left in-place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Album discographies

Do album discographies always comprise all albums and EPs, including collections of remixes and releases exclusive to e.g. Spotify? (I've been expanding and sorting some items on Wikidata recently.) Jc86035 (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Yes. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. This probably means a lot of Wikidata items (for albums, album versions, EPs, single items separate from song items, ...) need to be created somewhere down the line. Jc86035 (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like a task for a bot! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would try, given that the bot would have to be able to fix classifications and chronologies of tens of thousands of existing items (I don't think there are AI/neural network servers for Wikidata bots yet). It's also quite tedious to add these manually, especially when basically all of the existing data needs fixing in some way anyway (completely unsourced, wrong or incomplete release date(s), not structured properly, song and single and all releases under one item, no items for deluxe editions for albums, no separated discography items for singles and albums, chronologies used ambiguously as statements instead of as qualifiers for statements with aforementioned mostly nonexistent discography items, ...). There also doesn't seem to be a starting point to import a lot of this data; for example, MusicBrainz is CC0, but it is also user-generated, and even on the few items I've looked at I've already come across several errors, duplicates and omissions. Jc86035 (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Definition of emo

I'm doing a GA review of emo, and would like some input from more experienced music editors on how to deal with the definition of the genre. It appears to be poorly defined, and it sounds like it's changed over the years. The article has quotes saying it's a vague term, which I can believe, but I think the reader needs a clear definition (or definitions) at the start of the article. I can find things like this AllMusic article on Drive Like Jehu, which includes "Moreover, they did fit the earlier definition of emo: challenging, intricate guitar rock rooted in hardcore and performed with blistering intensity, especially the frenzied vocals", but is it OK to use asides like that in a definition of a significant genre? Ideally we'd have some encyclopedic sources elsewhere that more or less agreed on the definition, and we'd combine those sources. There are dictionaries that include definitions for emo, but I'm doubtful that they would be as nuanced as a good musical source.

Is there a standard way to source the definition of a musical genre? And are there any sources that could be used to define emo? I'm aware these are questions the writer of the article should ask, rather than the reviewer, but I would rather not fail the article for vagueness if the vagueness is unavoidable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

On an anecdotal level, the content is on the right track in a general sense. Much like punk rock once meant The Ramones and The Clash and later turned more into Green Day and Blink 182, the definition of emo changed as well, once referring to these raw underground bands, and later referring to extremely poppy, mainstream bands like Fall Out Boy or Panic at the Disco. As for writing/sourcing it, I'm not entirely sure - I've maintained a few here and there over the years, but not ever actively written them myself. I've come across a few genre articles that are GA/FA over the years, so you could always try taking a look at some of those? (Off the top of my head - heavy metal music, hard rock, and grunge come to mind.) Someone recently alerted me to the fact that AllMusic has articles for specific genre - for example one dedicated to Grunge. I'm not entirely sure on our stance on those though. Artist Bios and album reviews are usable, but their sidebars on genre or album credits are frequently erroneous and not considered usable it seems. Not sure where this would fall, though at least generally AM's prose is usable... Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks -- it's helpful to look at a music genre article that's at FA level, for comparison. I am concerned that the emo article doesn't have enough generality; I've left notes to that effect at the GA review. Heavy metal music covers the history in general terms, naming bands to illustrate the history; emo in some places just lists the bands and albums that were successful, without saying much about the genre. See the 97-02 section for an example. If any experienced music GA reviewers want to comment, here or at the GA, I'd appreciate it; I think the article should probably be failed but some more eyes wouldn't hurt. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Good Article doesn't mean "correct article". Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I mean, I get the sentiment you’re probably driving at, if you sub in the word “perfect” instead - GA’s don’t need to be perfect - but I’m pretty sure we do like GAs to at least be synonymous with “correct” at least. Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I was driving at both ideas. A GA doesn't necessarily have to have correct layout, manuals of style and formatting. A lot has been missed by reviewers in the past. This would reflect the "perfect" in your comment.
Similarly, the content in a GA isn't always necessarily correct. References are not always fully checked and errors can creep into a GA. There are hopefully no instances of WP:NOR or WP:UNDUE, and instead that the articles meet WP:BALANCE and are well referenced.
I'm not saying that's the case with any of the articles listed here, but was more of a general statement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Rock Cellar

Any opinions on whether Rock Cellar is reliable? It's used as a source in Andy Paley sessions, which I'm reviewing at GAN. This is the page cited. I don't see any indication of paid work or editorial oversight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As it happens I've just failed the article on other grounds, but I've leave this question here in case it's a reliable source that could be added to the list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I’ll try to look into it. They cover a lot of rock music stuff, so it’d be good to make a call on it. I’ve historically used them sparingly, because I think they’re on the fringe. Not sure I’ve done a thorough look though. Sergecross73 msg me 01:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Blake & Rice album release date

The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_%26_Rice states that the album "Blake & Rice" was released in 1992, but as noted correctly in the discographies of both Norm Blake and Tony Rice, the album was released in 1987. I do not know when it was recorded.

References to help verify the date:

Picture of the back of the CD case [1]

WorldCat entry [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.104.54 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction and source! I've gone ahead and made the change. If you find another mistake on a page, please feel free to fix it. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_500/MI0001/209/MI0001209290.jpg?partner=allrovi.com
  2. ^ WorldCat entry: http://www.worldcat.org/title/blake-rice/oclc/18044392

Discussion at WT:NFC#Toronto Rock 'n' Roll Revival 1969, Volume IV - 70 non-free files being used

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFC#Toronto Rock 'n' Roll Revival 1969, Volume IV - 70 non-free files being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone have access to the album Blunderbuss's liner notes?

This is a long shot, but I was wondering if anyone had access to the liner notes of Jack White's album Blunderbuss, because I'm having issues finding a reliable source for the Personnel listing. As far as I can tell by the article's history, there's a good chance the Personnel listing was adopted from Discogs, which is crowdsourced. The best source for credits that I can find is this page from AllMusic, but it doesn't contain the level of detail given in the article (i.e. the tracks each person contributed to). If anyone with access to the liner notes could check the Personnel listing in the article for accuracy, then the liner notes can be used as a source, and that would resolve the issue. It would also be helpful to check for missing people; I noticed that Bob Ludwig and Vance Powell aren't listed in the Personnel section despite working on engineering and mastering, and I would assume that they're credited in the liner notes. Thanks, Hadger (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hadger, I've checked my personal copy against this discogs entry: https://www.discogs.com/Jack-White-Blunderbuss/release/3566352 as far as I can see the entries are entirely accurate, you can check some of the pages of the album booklet against the discogs entry here for your own piece of mind: http://mimsnotebook.blogspot.com/2012/11/jack-white-blunderbuss.html. Hope this helps :-) EL Foz87 (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@EL Foz87: That's very helpful. Thank you so much! I'd like to cite the copy that you checked, so could you tell me which format your copy is in (CD, vinyl, or digital download) as well as the ID on your copy? (I think the proper name for this is the category number, and I believe it can be found somewhere in the liner notes, perhaps the back side; it seems like vinyl copies tend to use TMR followed by three digits, while CD copies tend to use an 11-digit number.) Hadger (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey Hadger, sorry for the late reply, doing shift work. I have the CD format it appears the category number is XLCD-566 and it's a UK pressing can't see any other identifiers apart from one after the copyright jargon on the back which is LC05667, hope that helps :-) EL Foz87 (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
No worries! This is exactly what I needed. Thank you! Hadger (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Discobuzz as a source

Hi, I just wanna know your opinion about this website called Discobuzz. It seems to be an online CD shop, can it be used?. Also, I wanna know if you think the product on the link (Shakira's "Pure Intuition" Remixes CD) seems realiable to you? I'm having my doubts about it. It says it was released by Energy Records from Germany, but I can't confirm their existence. Thank you. --Paparazzzi (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

It's only a promotional CD, not an official release, so the question of whether Discobuzz is a "source" (I'd say no) becomes irrelevant, because this CD was never commercially available. Richard3120 (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice

Please see Talk:Buddy Williams (country musician)#RfC on discography format. Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

This RfC could use some additional input! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles

Could Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles and/or the website be reliable? I don’t know that much about the print source, but the website has a big about us page, even featuring Martin Popoff, who has wrote a greate amount of books about music. ~SML • TP 00:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? ~SML • TP 10:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Metal isn't my area, and I know nothing about Canadian publications, but the fact it ran as a print version for 15 years (as a proper magazine with an ISSN number, etc.), is still going online, has what appears to be an editorial structure, and includes well known contributing journalists like Martin Popoff and Greg Prato, makes me think it's an acceptable source. I personally wouldn't have any problem accepting it as a reliable source, but I think I'd probably defer to Sergecross73 and Walter Görlitz here, who are likely to know more about this genre and type of publication. Richard3120 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems like I've seen past discussions for Brave Words when looking through the talk page archives in cleaning up the WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES list earlier in the year. Seems like its reliability was debated, without any clear consensus, if I recall, though I'm not sure. I can try to look around later. Sixty, you can look through the talk page archives some if you want an answer faster than that. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Martin Popoff is a very promising sign that it's reliable, but don't let my statement alone declare this reliable. Let's see what else we can find. dannymusiceditor oops 18:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Seems reliable as in print for so long, with editorial oversight and experts involved, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, looking it over, it looks like much of their staff has been writing about music for decades, and done so for other publications and fanzines. I think their credentials, and long existence in the music industry, are enough to consider them an WP:RS, unless someone points out some serious counter-evidence. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

"Rave reviews"

There is a discussion regarding the language "rave reviews" is neutral or appropriate for the article, Astroworld. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:The Life of Pablo

Should Template:The Life of Pablo be nominated for deletion? I never see navboxes for specific albums. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

There are quite a few of them Category:Album navigational boxes - X201 (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Since Template:Kanye West songs contains links for all the same songs (and listed by album) and the templates would appear in the same articles, it is redundant navigation. 16:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@X201: Hmm, not all of these are templates about individual albums. I don't feel too strongly either way, so I will let others decide. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Update: The template has been deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

searching for ace records brooklyn ny

Hello everyone, I am trying to locate any information on Ace records. It was a small independent label in Brooklyn NY in the 1980s'. I am trying to find anything written about this company to add to an article i am drafting. Carolcappetta (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

If anyone can help you here, it will be 78.26 or Chubbles... Richard3120 (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey, that sounds fun! I'm not going to be available much for the next few days, but I'll try to help out. What were some of their artists? I'm afraid a name like "Ace Records" will be a bit difficult to search, but if I have a couple artist names it helps. Then we'll see if it meets notability standards. Thanks Richard3120!78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure Carol wants the information for the article she is drafting on Derek Reese, so there is the name of at least one artist. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
So, this is not the famous Ace Records label out of Mississippi that we have an article on already? (If so, Discogs has it wrong.) I'm afraid I don't have anything on an Ace out of New York in the '80s. There was also a guy named Warpozio who was at one time a real whiz with label articles, but I don't know how active he is these days. Chubbles (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

the band nu clear energy was on ace records and the band called big boys Carolcappetta (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Carolcappetta, I don't think those were the same Ace Records label... there have been lots of labels called Ace Records, in the US, the UK and in Europe. Richard3120 (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Happened to scroll by this. Chubbles, if you want a better chance at getting to Warpozio, he's more active on Dutch Wikipedia these days than English, you could see about what's up over there. dannymusiceditor oops 17:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
So is it this label? Reese was signed to that Ace? I don't have any substantial information about that label at the moment. Chubbles (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is the correct ace records :-) the big boys record came out in 1982, and reese made a record in 2011 and yes, it is the same ace records. But wikipedia doesnt recognize discogs as a reliable source ? so now what ? If i search derek reese big boys, under images i found the album cover and the record, but it is a picture that reese uploaded to his google plus account, same goes for the big boy video, it was uploaded to youtube, so notability is still an issue, Carolcappetta (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is, because Reese's album came out in 2011. The trouble is, I just don't think he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article, however hard Carolcappetta tries to establish notability. Richard3120 (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think this is the same label. In any case, it certainly has nothing to do with the Ace Records from Mississippi of the 50s and 60s. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 11:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to correct a statement above, Wikipedia does recognize Discogs as a reliable source for some things. There is no blanket prohibition. The existence of the album and that it was on a label called "Ace Records" would be supported, but not which Ace. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Carolcappetta, Walter is correct about using Discogs for a reliable source in certain aspects, but the problem is, Discogs is currently showing that the Ace Records label of the Big Boys and the Ace Records label of Derek Reese are NOT the same Ace Records... so in fact using Discogs would hinder, not help, your search. Richard3120 (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
It is the same ace records, big boys isn’t listed, but it is the same company, but non of this matters because Wikipedia doesn’t recognize Discogs, so it’s back to square one again. Carolcappetta (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I added the Discogs to Reese;s page, the big boys release, and the album he produced, that was also released under ace records. Carolcappetta (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Both albums are now listed on Discog's under the same ace records, so maybe this is a state for reese's notability.I know its not much, but its something, Carolcappetta (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
And this is a case where Discogs cannot be used. It does not help an album prove it is notable. It does not help to prove a musician is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

So what is the least amount of notability that a person can have to be approved for a wikipedia article ? I don't understand how reese isn't notable as a musician ? his name is credited with a two famous recordings on major labels, his music was accepted for 3 music libraries and his music was used a few times on tv shows, and he has been on television ? he has 2 releases with an indie label, not self published ? why is this not enough ? Carolcappetta (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

See WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Generally, if the press are writing about a subject after one release, they're already notable. If they're not being written about after fifty, they're not notable. It's not about a how many releases the subject has, it's about what sort of notability those releases have generated. This is now a different discussion though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC about album reviews

Talk:Boy (album)#RfC: Should two scores from Rolling Stone, from the same year, be included in the ratings box? An RfC has been added that may be of interest to this group. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a deletion discussion about Major Lazer's unreleased album here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music Is the Weapon (2nd nomination)

Editors are welcome to comment. Flooded with them hundreds 11:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Labeling instrumentals

So, this question was posed to me recently, and it was one of those things that I've seen handled both ways, without any real discussion that I've been aware of, so I figured I'd start a discussion on it.

In track lists of album articles, should there be a "(instrumental)" next to instrumentals tracks? To see what I mean, see Meteora (album)#Track listing on song number 12. Should it say "Session" or "Session (instrumental)"? Its not a question on whether or not its an instrumental - it is - but rather, should we put the label there or no?

I don't feel too strongly on it either way. As a reader and music fan, I like seeing it. But as an editor enforcing guidelines on an encyclopedia, I'm neutral. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say no, unless it's labelled as an instrumental as part of the tracklisting on the actual album, in which case it should (our tracklisting should reflect that on the album as far as possible). If it's important that the reader know that one more tracks are instrumentals it can be covered in the prose. There are also cases where a track may have only a few words or no words but some vocal noises, and then it comes down to editor opinion on what is or isn't an instrumental, so it can become a bit of a minefield. In the case of Meteora above, it isn't labelled with '(instrumental)' on the album, so in my view it shouldn't be in the article. --Michig (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Michig. Whatever the liner notes state, that's what we should attempt to reflect. If the liner notes do not exist, then however reliable sources list it. As a side note, that's another reason to have "producer" rather than "production" for the album's producer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
No. Why would we call out a song for being an instrumental but not one for having 5/4 time signature or being 320 bpm? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Completely agree with Michig and Walter - go by what reliable sources (i.e. the sleeve notes) say, otherwise it's OR on our part. And as Michig has rightly pointed out, when you get a track which has vocal sounds but not actual vocals on it, that's an edit war waiting to happen. Richard3120 (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Some liner notes, particularly those for classical music and certainly dance music, do indicate the piece's tempo, and if the liner notes indicate the content, I see no reason not to convey what the artist or label felt important. It's rare to indicate a song's time signature anywhere but in its score or an extended analysis of the piece so I would say that's not a reasonable counterargument. However, even in a recording like Time Out, where changing time signatures is the purpose of the recording, only the background discusses the time signatures as the liner notes do not discuss them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes what they think is important is thanking their high school math teacher and writing a short essay on veganism. The function of an article here is not to reproduce the liner notes: sometimes those are inaccurate or a joke. The goal is to give users a certain set of information. What exactly the liner notes say and how they are formatted is irrelevant. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I've seen artists and labels include "management", "road crew" and "special thanks" sections, but we don't need to include those because it's not directly about the album. We could discuss the essay, etc., in the background section using prose. Liner notes and how they are formatted are a reliable source, and so they are most relevant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Earlier I voiced my support on adding them, but Michig and Richard have excellent points. I never thought about what might happen with, say, Nothing More's "Pyre", which has an audio clip but no vocals from Jonny Hawkins. Also, Richard noted that it's OR on our part, and I honestly should have thought about that before. Adding "instrumental" to these is like saying "oh, you can tell this is progressive metal just by listening to how many weird rhythm changes are in it!" Wow, wish I had learned the hypocrisy behind my actions. dannymusiceditor oops 18:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Walter, as I pointed out above, liner notes are frequently inaccurate: they are incomplete, include jokes, or use terminology that we don't have to reproduce exactly (e.g. The Minutemen are always credited with "singing" but it's okay to put "vocals"). Liner notes are useful as a starting point but are not a veto on our style or presenting accurate information. Funny little asides are worth mentioning in prose but not in the lists of personnel or tracks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wow, I’m surprised how strongly people feel about this, considering how widely I’ve observed it being done. But it could just be an enforcement thing too - we’d probably all agree all genre should be sourced too, but I also feel like I could pretty quickly find five stubby album articles with unsourced genre pretty quickly too. Anyways, good to know for the future. Thanks for the input. Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Still Dangerous - Thin Lizzy live album 1977

ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Still_Dangerous

Just added some content whose direct source is the content of the album itself. How does one best cite this?

This is in response to an erroneous/misleading statement in the article for the film The Expendables, which mentions that the song "The Boys Are Back in Town" is used over the end credits. I edited this to clarify that the version used for the end credits is in fact the live version from the Still Dangerous album, not the more common and more familiar studio version from the Jailbreak album, which I thought was a worthy inclusion in terms of historical interest. But I do not know how best to cite this information to satisfy Wikipedia policy.

BTW mine is not the only edit of this page that received a .[citation needed] reminder; the prior editor apparently had the same problem I have now.

As a point of interest I was actually in the audience at the Tower Theater on 20 October 1977 to see the show that was made into the Still Dangerous album. That's my scream heard after "Soldier of Fortune" at the start of "Jailbreak"!

This is one of my favourite bands ever (like many others I get protective over Phil Lynott's legacy). Help & guidance appreciated!

JComet (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@JComet: When directly citing an album, the appropriate templates are {{cite AV media notes}} (for liner notes and other physical packaging) and {{cite AV media}} (for the recording itself). LifeofTau 00:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve the article for the 1997 film Spawn and get the quality to at least B class. The Soundtrack section mentions various versions of the album, extra tracks, and special editions, and the section needs references to properly verify all this (frankly I don't have any doubt the albums exist but citation needed tags were barfed all over the article even in cases where it was pretty obvious the citation at the end of the paragraph covered the whole paragraph). I normally edit film articles not music articles and in the past I would have simply used links from Amazon.com as a basic way to verify that an album exists and the track listing at least matches the edition being written about but I'm wondering if there are better options and that someone here might be able to recommend good sources for Album articles in general and film soundtracks in particular? -- 109.79.161.65 (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak to albums specifically, but here is a list of reliable sources that I have found through experience to be dependable for information about popular music:
A much longer list of music sources can be found at WP:MUSICSOURCE. In particular, AllMusic, given its breadth of coverage, is likely to be the best source for the information you seek, though be advised that the website's sidebars and album/track lengths are not considered reliable. I have noticed that the soundtrack section of the Venom article contains several references citing Discogs, and I feel I must stress that, because most of the content there is user-provided, it is not a reliable source, and it is never appropriate to directly cite Discogs (see WP:USERG and WP:NOTRSMUSIC for more information). What is acceptable is directly citing the photographs hosted on Discogs taken of physical media (List of songs recorded by George Harrison is an excellent example of this being done). I hope you find this useful, and best of luck with your editing. LifeofTau 01:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
If you have physical copies of the special editions in question, you could take the information directly from them; that would quality as cataloging/publication data, and I don't think there could be a more reliable source for verifying it than the item itself unless, for some reason, there were doubt about its veracity (e.g., with a bootleg release, but that's moot here). Chubbles (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. -- 109.77.209.152 (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_57&oldid=1045690381"