Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 64

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66→Archive 70

Music sampling in Hong Kong

Having done extensive work on the Sampling (music) article, I discovered the Music sampling in Hong Kong recently and I'm struggling to make sense of it. It's not clearly written, and I can't ascertain if the subject is notable enough for a dedicated article (as opposed to being covered in, say, Sampling (music) or Intellectual property in China). Any thoughts? Popcornfud (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

My first thought is that the article is badly titled... most of it doesn't talk about sampling, but about parody songs, which is an entirely different thing. Richard3120 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Seconded. It's hard to follow what exactly is being documented here, or it's real scope. I feel like it should be redirected or sent to draft space until someone more coherently writes it. (Looks like the article creator created an account in 2016, made the article, and disappeared for ever, so probably no use asking them. They likely didn't know what they were doing and are long gone.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks both. I've gone ahead and nominated it for deletion because I have a feeling it shouldn't exist at all - redirecting is one solution but then we're still stuck with a weird, confusing redirect article. Alternatively, someone may be able to come along, make sense of it and whip it into shape. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Music_sampling_in_Hong_Kong Popcornfud (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: Online retailer sources for release information

Hi. I read at WP:ALBUMAVOID that online retailers should be avoided as sources. However, in light of a content dispute, I realize they seem to be referenced anyway and often for release history tables, such as at Aaliyah (album) (an article I had a hand in) and Rock the Boat (song), whose editors recently have tried to reconcile release information into the album article. Which begs the question, what to do? Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is the dispute? Can it not be sourced through other means or something? Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Most of the release entries in the release history table are sourced to sites offering the album for purchase (7Digital, Amazon.com, Oricon, Musicline.de). All I can find from a cursory search is this Albumism article that verifies the Japan, UK and US dates alongside the record label. Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The content dispute centered on the addition of columns to the release history table sourced to more retail sources, as well as date changes for the singles in the infobox that were based on other retailer sources like Amazon. I brought up WP:ALBUMAVOID to discourage the use of such sources, only to realize that the existing table had already referenced much of its information with similar sources. I don't want to be a hypocrite, so I'm here asking for clarification; it was brought to my attention by the other editor in the dispute that other articles seem to use retail sources for this information, which makes me wonder what the practice really is among editors. Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Band name and album title on cover artwork for Demon Hunter's The Triptych

I am having a dispute with Walter Görlitz over a piece of information in this article regarding the album's cover artwork. Although The Triptych has three official cover arts, the artwork used in the infobox is the primary art, and is used by most digital retailers and streaming platforms. What is unique about this particular cover is that this displays the name of the album and the band's name. This is a noticeably different approach than each of their other nine studio albums, on which are a variation of the same "demon" image appears, but the former elements of identification are absent. I fail to see why this is not a valid piece of information to add to the article, but Walter disagrees. Initially, he cited WP:TRIVIA, but this does not apply: "This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article [...] This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information." I look forward to discussion. dannymusiceditor oops 18:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

My initial, uninvolved and also uninformed opinion (I know nothing of The Triptych or Demon Hunter) is that the last revisions you, Danny, made are both of trivial interest and apparently pure WP:OR, so I'd agree with Walter's reversions. What I'm really wondering, though, is: why are you here and not at the article's talk page, where Walter asked you to make your case? Specific issues like this can be handled locally; you're not really asking some overarching question about albums. Are you? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 05:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Futher to this, "notable" has a specific meaning when used in Wikipedia terms. It usually means someone has written about it. In Wikipedia terms, that someone is a reliable source. Whether it's their profile at AllMusic, or possibly Jesus Music Hideout, or a reliable Christian metal website (does that even exist?). In short, it's probably true that it's the only time their name appeared on a cover, but is it actually notable or just trivia? I would have to check my War and Peace deluxe set to see if the name appears on the outside of the box set, but we should find a source before just including it. And TRIVIA is about trivia sections, not trivial content. Sorry for linking there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
JohnFromPinckney You can hardly fault Danny for asking here - a quick skim of the article would show that it's a 17 year old album article that gets little in the way of editing or traffic. A talk page discussion would get little in the way of additional input. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
That said, unfortunately, Danny, I don't think it's really worth pointing out either. But this is coming from someone who is even exasperated with how frequently pointless "title stylized in all caps" comments are made too. I am of the mindset that we should just let the readers observe these traits themselves. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@JohnFromPinckney: I rarely say this, but I don't care if that's OR. If it is a plainly observable and not subjective statement relying on assumption, which is the case, it is not original research that could be questioned, but simple common sense. Walter has noted the boxset - possibly true, I haven't looked at it, but I intended to just refer to studio albums. Sidenote: Serge has correctly noted the reason I came here, Demon Hunter and their related articles get exceedingly low traffic, so I directed it somewhere that can actually get discussion. Given that the majority of my experience here is working on musicians or album articles, I usually know when to direct a conversation to either the artist in question or a relevant project page.

As for the information itself, while I am disappointed that my opinion is not shared, I will accept it. I don't think this quite falls to the level of all-caps art titles, myself, but that's not entirely relevant. I would like to share that my thinking was that if Demon Hunter has ten albums (I am excluding their latest release as I consider it a compilation), and this was the only one to do it, then it was worth mention. I might be more inclined to think this title information not very relevant if the band only had two or three albums, but we're here with ten. dannymusiceditor oops 03:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Gotta say I'm not seeing why this is notable either. Popcornfud (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I checked the War and Peace box set slip cover and it has the band name clearly on the outside. The book itself does not contain the band's name either on the cover or binding, but it appears on the dedication page to each edition. The CDs also contain the band name, but were only discussing cover art. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarity by Kim Petras debut album?

Hello! I have been advised to bring this topic to WikiProject Albums since there is some confusion regarding Clarity by Kim Petras being considered her debut album. Kim has stated herself that Clarity was just a project in interviews and has even stated that on her own Twitter yet when I went to change it in articles I've been told that it's incorrect and should change it back. What is the overall consensus? Should it be changed or be kept as her debut album? (Stbo123 (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC))

I'm not familiar with the artist, but just generally speaking, can't it be...both? It's not like "album" and "music project consisting of 12 songs recorded by a musician" are mutually exclusive on the opposite ends of a spectrum or something. Sergecross73 msg me 09:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
It's a studio album, and it's her first one... I don't see how it is anything other than her debut studio album. Artists often refer to their current recording activities as "projects", whether they are stdio albums, soundtracks, EPs, singles, whatever. It could be that when she was recording it, she or her record label weren't sure what form the final release would be in (especially true in this case, given that Petras's previous recordings have ended up as a series of EPs rather than a full-length album), so it might have made sense to just call it a "project" at that stage. Richard3120 (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
In the apparently similar case of Tyler, the Creator's mixtape Bastard, the article notes that Tyler commonly refers to the project as his debut album, even though most sources consider it a mixtape. Would it not make sense to leave a similar note ("Petras herself has stated that she considers this a 'project' rather than an album," or something to that effect.) on the article? QuietHere (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah it's a very confusion situation. I also just found another source from Kim herself calling it a mixtape. Personally I feel as though it should be changed since the artist herself has said Clarity was always meant to be a project and it seems publications confused it with a debut album. (Stbo123 (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC))
We can only go by what reliable independent sources call it. Richard3120 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Okay, I understand. I only brought this topic up since she is releasing an album soon and there was confusion on some of her articles. What would happen if publications call her upcoming release her debut album? (Stbo123 (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC))
Then Wikipedia would call it her debut album. If they call it a mixtape, then we call it a mixtape. It's unlikely that it would be called a "project", though – as I said, I suspect Petras simply used that as a placeholder term until she knew what the finished article would be like. Richard3120 (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Seconded. "Project" isn't generally a classification term used. It's too vague. Just do a search and see which term is used most frequently by reliable sources - album, compilation album, mixtape - and go with that. Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to add the Grammy Awards/The Recording Academy as a reliable source for genre.

Given that the RIAA runs the Grammy Awards, and given that the RIAA's Grammy Awards are voted on by fellow musicians and industry professionals, I would think that a nomination in a particular genre's category would be sufficient to cite as an authoritative source for genre for a particular recording. Although more specific descriptors of genre are likely preferable to the more generalized Grammy Award categories; a citation to a Grammy Award nomination/win a particular genre should still be considered a reliable source; and one that is more reliable, I would argue, than many of the other "reliable" sources currently on the list. I'm curious to hear people's thoughts. Thank you! --UnsungHeroWiki (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Strongly disagree: Artists and labels submit their music in those categories, so an artist winning Best Pop Solo Performance would be equivalent to that artist calling that song pop. Additionally, the genres aren't even accurate. If we take a look at this year's nominees for Best Pop Vocal Album, you can see that only one out of the five nominees (Justin Bieber's Changes) has "pop" in the Infobox for that album. Lastly, an artist can only submit for one category a year (other than the general categories), so if they make a rock song and an alternative song and submit both in the alternative categories, the genre for the rock song will not be accurate. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
    • @Doggy54321: Very good points. I somewhat disagree that "an artist winning Best Pop Solo Performance would be equivalent to that artist calling that song pop." An artist winning Best Pop Solo Performance, is not equivalent to that artist calling that song "pop'. Continuing this example, an artist who is submitting a release for consideration in a "pop" category is equivalent to the artist calling that song "pop". You are correct that labels and artists submit their own music in those categories, but to reach the official stage of nomination, it requires many other members of the voting academy (i.e. musicians, producers, etc) who are not necessarily affiliated with that particular artist or label, to vote for it in that category to get it to the stage of being officially nominated. In terms of this year's Best Pop Vocal Album nominees not having "pop" in the infobox; I'm not suggesting that the genres currently listed for those albums be replaced by what is, admittedly, the more general categorization implied by The Recording Academy's nomination. However, just because there may be better terms that can be used to describe a song's genre, does not make the general categorization made by the Academy therefore "inaccurate" or wrong. In terms of an artist submitting multiple songs for different categories, that's fine! I'm not suggesting that The Recording Academy be the definitive source/authority on genre (I'd rather it not be), but I do believe it should be considered a reliable one. UnsungHeroWiki (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
      • @UnsungHeroWiki: Thank you, you too! Not exactly. If we go back to Bieber and Changes, we can see that his label submitted that album in the Pop categories. But, Bieber himself called it R&B on Instagram [1]. So now, it's Bieber's word against his label's/the Grammys' word. My point is that this can get chaotic, fast. Another valid point is that the Grammys are infamous for not being transparent with their nomination and winning processes, so we really don't know who to trust. For all we know, there could be one person who categorizes the nominations and says "You're pop, you're rock, you're classical, you're R&B", and that doesn't seem all that trustworthy. I'm not suggesting that The Recording Academy be the definitive source/authority on genre (I'd rather it not be), but I do believe it should be considered a reliable one. – this doesn't make sense. If the Academy lists a song as one genre but all the sources from reviewers list the song as something else, what would we do then? Would we list both genres (as the Academy is a reliable source for genres) or would we only list the reviewers' genre (as the Academy shouldn't be a definitive source)? Lastly, I forgot to mention that the Grammys are undergoing major changes with the way the two processes run as we speak, so I think we should let them iron out that plan and implement it this year, and then revisit whether this should be considered a RS for genres after the 64th Grammys happen early next year. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 23:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
        • @Doggy54321: So what's the current policy then? If Justin Bieber says "this is R&B" but Rolling Stone calls it "Pop" -- can both tags live alongside one another? Is an artist a reliable source for categorizing their own work? That's almost a philosophical question to answer. You're definitely right that it gets chaotic fast:)! I don't know enough about the voting process to say one way or another about exactly how those categories work. I will concede the legitimacy of the Grammy Awards is questionable right now. However, it is an institution made of professionals who work in the field that's been around since 1959--much longer than many of the magazines and blogs in our reliable sources list. If we are to question the categories, why not question the awards process itself, which you kind of hint at here? There are Grammy awards and nominations listed all over Wikipedia, but there's been no discussion of details or audit of that process, nor do I think it's feasible to do. I'm not sure why you felt my sentence doesn't make sense though? Essentially I'm just asking it to be listed as a generally reliable source alongside the others here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources). You can have many reliable sources (as is the case), but a definitive source would be the "most reliable or complete". I'm saying that the Grammy Awards is NOT the definitive (or "final") source, merely a source. If I'm understanding you right, your response suggests that I believe that the Grammy Awards categorization should rule over the others-- that's not what I'm saying. If the majority of reviews are calling its genre something different from the Grammy's -- then it makes sense to ignore the Grammy's categorization, in favor of the majority. How do we currently deal with discrepancies among the RS list we currently have? I can't imagine that every publication on the reliable sources list is always in agreement on the genre of a song. I just can't wrap my head around the fact that "Blabbermouth.net" (whom I have nothing against by the way) is a reliable source for genre, while an institution of industry professionals that's been around for decades is not.UnsungHeroWiki (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
          • @UnsungHeroWiki: I have no clue, I have never run into a situation where the artist and reliable sources aren't saying the same thing. However, if you agree that the legitimacy of the Grammys is questionable (and there is evidence to prove that), I don't understand why we would consider it a reliable source in the first place, much less for something as important as sourcing genres. That makes much more sense, thank you for clarifying. If sources are disagreeing on a genre, we usually list all genres listed. However, I do not see this happening for the Grammys (and I think you would agree), due to the fact that the Grammy genre categorizations are very broad. If we have sources calling the song indie rock or bubblegum pop, it wouldn't make sense to also list generic rock/pop. This is another reason why I am opposed to this. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • UnsungHeroWiki, The RIAA does not run the Grammy Awards, that's The Recording Academy. Erick (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Magiciandude: Point conceded! I'm going to reword my argument and replace "RIAA" with "The Recording Academy". UnsungHeroWiki (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This is problematic. Remember The Tourist (2010 film), a romantic thriller, getting a nomination for Best Picture: Musical or Comedy, despite it lacks musicals and comedy? (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    UnsungHeroWiki, Also, I'm pretty sure the Golden Globes have different standards than the Oscars (from what I understand). The Academy Awards are probably more reliable than the Golden Globes. Erick (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: according to this year's Grammy nominations, Brittany Howard is pop, R&B, alternative, rock, and roots music... I'm not sure that helps anyone decide what genre she is. Richard3120 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I've historically used a Grammy Nom for best rock/metal for various song/albums without issue. It's one of the biggest music awards on the planet. Certainly they can identify something as innocuous as music genre. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    Or Crest of a Knave for heavy metal. Caro7200 (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    Same as above. Am I supposed to shocked to see that the Grammys called an album we currently label "hard rock" as "metal" instead? There's a huge overlap and area of similarities between those two genre. I mean, no doubt, the Grammys make some genre calls I dont agree with. But that's not a requirement for being a reliable source. Credentials are. And to think that we value them as one of the most important awards in the industry, but don't think they know how to do something as basis as identify genre for the music their awarding? That doesn't make any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are other factors besides musicological/historical accuracy when it comes to Grammy Award categories. It would be similar to using radio formats or record charts for genres. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how to reconcile these two stances - how do we say "The Grammy Award for best rock album is a notable award" but concurrently say "The Grammy Awards don't know how to identify rock music"? The point is probably mostly moot - the Grammy's get so much coverage that any song nominated for a rock/metal grammy will almost certainly spur other reliable sources to call it rock/metal, but I still can't wrap my head around this conceptually. How do we sat its notable that they award a genre award but also they don't have the ability to indentify the genre itself to begin with? Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Sergecross73, Right? I find this discussion weird since the categories are made up of committees from their respective fields. My take is that the Grammy/Latin Grammys can be used as a source for genre if no other reliable sources can be found. This is especially useful for obscure albums that are nominated categories that don't get much attention. Also, @UnsungHeroWiki: I'm guessing whatever the outcome of the consensus is, the same will apply to the Latin Grammys. Would you be okay with including it in the section header?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magiciandude (talk • contribs) 23:16 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that there's that weirdness, Serge. But where the Grammys and the Oscars are award shows that are also trade shows, Billboard and Variety are trade publications that are also magazines with editorial policies, for example. Part of the, uh, joy of these things is how often they get things "wrong" (leaving aside the fact that artists tend to care less about them now, at least the Grammys). I think sometimes art or artists are placed in categories for convenience, or for "the hell of it", especially since industry folks are deciding things. Was Samuel L. Jackson really a supporting actor in Pulp Fiction, whereas John Travolta was an actor? According to the Academy... Caro7200 (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The Academy certainly has the ability to identify a genre, but they are not a slave to it. They are dealing on a broader level and have other considerations. As pointed out above, "convenience" sometimes plays into it. A perennial runner-up might be given a less-than-ideal award when there are no other good candidates for it that year. Industry awards are inherently political: support for one may be returned for another, etc. It's fine if editors want to use the Grammys as a source (by consensus) when others aren't available, but it is not necessary to add it to WP:RSMUSIC when other sources, which may provide actual discussion or analysis, are preferable. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Especially for albums/songs that are nominated in a category where its genres are not really touched upon by other reliable sources. This would be useful for recordings in Grammy/Latin Grammy categories that don't get much attention and would combat WP:Systemic bias, as albums nominated in the general, pop, rock, and rap/hip-hop, often get the most covered categories. Erick (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Mildly Disagree Some of the categories are relics. For instance, until 2011, they had no category for contemporary Christian music, and instead everything was "gospel" music, even though CCM had been out-selling Gospel since the early 80s. That means that awards from the 80s would identify CCM or Christian rock as "gospel". If we agree to this, it would have be a very narrow set of criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Stereogum

Hi all. Have we definitely considered whether or not Stereogum is considered reliable? There was a prior discussion regarding it here but it's still not added to the table at WP:RSMUSIC. – zmbro (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I stand with my prior comments - I've used them without issue or opposition off and on throughout the years, but have never done a deep dive on their make up. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Sergecross73, According to their about us page, they have three primary writers, and three different editors, so they do have editorial oversight. That's one thing that constitutes reliable, right? – zmbro (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, having an established staff and editors are good points towards being reliable. The fact that they've been reporting on music for almost two decades helps too. Sergecross73 msg me 22:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Blender

Do we consider Blender reliable? It's listed under WP:RSMUSIC but the 2009 Discussion that's listed doesn't really discuss it anywhere. Would appreciate clarification. Thanks. – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, virtually any print magazine is going to be considered reliable, especially older ones, just because of the work, knowledge, and credentials required to have it be published and widely circulated. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Sergecross73, Awesome thanks! – zmbro (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for cover art

Anyone able to add cover art to Taste Test (EP)? I can't find on Amazon. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

A web search for an image turns up an album photo on ET Canada's website, ET Canada. I can't edit the image to a smaller size at this time, but the album cover is available there, at about 4000 x 4000 pixels. Mburrell (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
The image found by Mburrell above appears to be the back cover. I found what I assume is the front cover, as used by Apple Music etc. and added it to the article. I hope it's the right image. Also note that you can use really large picture files, and they will be automatically reduced by a bot (for copyright purposes) within 24 hours. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Not to be critical, but on the page I mentioned, the third image down matches what was posted as the front cover from Apple Music. It is the fourth image down that is the back cover. Mburrell (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. For totally online releases, figuring out what's the "front" or "back" or "internal" cover just isn't as simple as it used to be. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Assessment questions

Forgive my ignorance, but can the requesting an assessments section be used to request a change in assessment (namely seeing if articles graded C are really B quality), and if so, can I list several at any one time?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen it done, but I do not know why it couldn't either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Yep, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment#How_to_nominate_a_page, you can. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Problems with Sputnikmusic

Despite what seems to be a long time consenusus about this site, it always looked dubious. No credentials, unknown level of editorial oversight and the fact that the site grew from fan forum: to me all of that are points for considering it rather unreliable. Further search brought this reddit thread, where its stated that staff members are recruited from regular users, thus completely blurring the gap between the two that was deemed crutial all this time. With all that, I don't think Sputnikmusic can pass as a reliable source. 2.92.125.160 (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Fantano's review's should finally start to be added to articles

Before I start on my other justifications, why should it matter if he's self published?? I think this blatant demand that no opinion be used as a source if it is self published is definitely applicable for one time viral blog posts, but Fantano's content definitely is far more curated and edited than that. He's giving scripted, respected reviews, why does them being self published negate them? That was certainly not the case for Roger Ebert who was for decades considered the most influential film critic. I am not comparing the two entirely, but it is my belief that Fantano is as essential (if not more, as described below) to music today as Roger Ebert was to film in his lifetime. Besides, this is assuming that music publications have incredible oversight over all their reviews which ensure that they are all always unbiased. This is simply not the case. Many publications pretty much give their journalists free reign if they are fairly experienced, and you still see things like 0 star ratings from 'reputed' publications such as Independent based on biased factors. I think that given the decade that Anthony Fantano has been doing this, he is a professional reviewer who despite being self published has carved a niche for himself that is respected by much of the music industry, and should be respected by Wikipedia.

In essence, I believe that despite Fantano being self published, his reviews should be included as a source based purely on their influence and how much they are respected by the industry at large.

On to my other justifications.

New York Times called him "the only music critic that matters if you're under 25", Forbes and NPR did a whole feature on him and he's received a ton of other press which can be easily found. It is time to realize that Fantano is this generation's Christgau and I think it's incredibly backward thinking and ignorant of the Wikipedia community to so flagrantly dismiss him.

I can confidently say that Fantano's opinion is far more revered and read than most of the magazines that are included in review articles. There have been several artists who have have had massive boosts in popularity after a positive Fantano review and there are some influential artists such as Death Grips and Brockhampton whose fan bases have very large populations who were introduced to their music by Fantano or at the very least are aware of him. Many comments on even larger artists youtube video of a single (Kanye West, Kendrick Lamar) can be found that speak of his review.

His reviews have millions of views and several several times the amount of audience (especially for music) that other review sources such as 'Exclaim' and 'Financial Times' do.

His influence is undeniable. Let's take the largest current musical event - Kanye West's Donda for example. On fan subreddit's and discord servers, you can find consistent anticipation to his review, and even larger subreddit's like HipHopHeads and more consistently discuss him and his reviews are considered events. Even on Twitter right now, there is a serious amount of anticipation as to what his score on Donda will be.

Several artists have engaged with him. He has interviewed many mainstream artists such as Lil Nas X, Finneas, Mike Shinoda of Linkin Park, Julian Casablancas, Logic and more. Many other significant artists have mentioned/interacted with him on Twitter and podcasts.

You can mention the score as review by 'TheNeedleDrop' or just by Anthony Fantano. It is impossible in 2021 to be an active member of the music (or at the very least, Hip Hop) community and be unaware of who he is.

Also if he's not being mentioned because he's an individual, let me just say that this is also incredibly regressive and not up to the times at all of Wikipedia.

I am aware that this has been discussed before, but I feel that even the most recent 2021 discussion was not fair.

I think I've made my case pretty clear by now. Hopefully Wikipedia does what is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackner2 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

That really wasn't the consensus in the most recent (and extensive) discussion, which was to use it sparingly, on a case by case basis. It'd be best to drop this - no little WP:LOCALCONSENSUS you get here is going to be enough to overturn the massive site-wide discussion we just had this year on it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
To the anonymous editor posting this: With regard to "Forbes and NPR did a whole feature on him and he's received a ton of other press which can be easily found" – then please add some of that coverage at Anthony Fantano. I don't think there's any mention there of the Forbes and NPR features, for instance, but it's that sort of recognition from mainstream publications that would help your case. If I remember right, last time this issue was discussed at length, there were editors who based their opposition on the idea that Fantano had received recognition "only" from the NYT – when in fact there were other publications to consider. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sergecross73 and JG66: The editor isn't adding anything other than their personal opinion. They did this in several articles recently [2] [3] [4]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi TheAmazingPeanuts. Well, I'd say that post you highlighted is pretty useful, in that it's entiriely focused on improving article content. I followed up on another edit you linked and made this change (as you know). Again, for the most part, I think Ackner2 made a good point and I've said as much at the talk page, of course. JG66 (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@JG66: I don't disagree with Ackner2 regarding the recent edits, my issue is the editor does not understand how Wikipedia works. I think might be better to leave a "Welcome to Wikipedia" comment at their talk page instead but you already explained my issues much better then me, so it's no big deal. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
A belated "Welcome" message wouldn't go amiss, you know. Like I say, I think most of A2's suggestions you linked to were constructive; the trait I mentioned whereby some editors feel the need to insert an unsourced overview of critical reception is definitely something that should be raised and addressed in album and song articles. (Eg, it's not for us to describe a review as "glowing" unless a secondary source comments in that way about the review, or the reviewer themselves state "Hey readers, I'm giving this music a glowing review!") JG66 (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@JG66: It's probably just me who is making a big deal out of this, right? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, maybe TAP ... But these are pretty confusing times, and we all need to express ourselves(!). JG66 (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not a huge deal. Some of their discussions may be a bit misguided, but it seems to be in good-faith. They're pretty new, and it takes time to learn how things go around here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Post-punk.com

Hey all. Would post-punk.com be considered reliable? Looks like this article has a lot of good info but I can't seem to find evidence of reliability. Thanks. – zmbro (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Ick, no. That article had no byline, so I went off to look at who's working on the site. They provide no clue. They have no "About us" page, nor useful corporate info in the footer. Their Home page consists of a long column of ads, with "content" consisting solely of a "Contact us here" link, which merely points to this page, which also provides no names, but offers the telling text, "Note that each article and PR request takes time to complete, so please make your submission early, and although it is not required, we urge you to donate to help us pay our staff for their time." The website is therefore not serious (not even about making money in a professional way), they appear to exist only to generate content upon request, and I do not regard it as reliable in any way. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
JohnFromPinckney, That's exactly what I thought. When I couldn't find an about us page I knew there was no way. We should add this to WP:NOTRSMUSIC for future reference. Thanks for the help! – zmbro (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
It's not the worst website I've seen – I'm more concerned about the fact the writer of this particular piece appears to be a jobbing bass player and blogger himself, and I'm not sure he's done much more than regurgitate facts found elsewhere, likely including Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm falling somewhere between John and Richard here in my stance. I'm not seeing any valid path to being classified an RS. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

uDiscoverMusic

Is uDiscoverMusic considered a reliable source? It seems like it to me, and I enjoy reading their articles, but I thought I'd see what you all think. KaraLG84 (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

We've discussed this before: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 62#Unreliable Source. The major issue here is that the website is owned by Universal Music, so they could be biased towards artists on their own record label. On the other hand, they do employ professional journalists with a lot of experience. The consensus seemed to be that it could be used with caution and noting that the journalists were writing about musicians and bands signed by the same label, but I'm not sure this was ever explicitly decided. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, looks like we were talking about using it in accordance with WP:PRIMARY, which I still support. We've done that with a couple other sources too. I think Artist Direct and some other one... Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I should've checked the archives. Makes sense since they're owned by Universal. KaraLG84 (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I would just like to mention something I came across last year while working on the page for a BTS song. This Forbes article dated June 19 was one of the earliest ones (if not the first, of only a few) reviewing the track when it was released, but I came across udiscovermusic's article dated June 26, which lifts wholesale from the Forbes piece. Here is another article they published about the music video for the same song. The wording choice is very similar to that found in several other articles (Billboard, Teen Vogue etc.) published on the same date, and reads as though it was pieced together from them. Now I'm not familiar with either writer of those UDM pieces so I could be 100% wrong, but that raised several flags for me so I avoid them altogether. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Good spot Carlobunnie, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the wording of the Forbes article was itself taken from a press release supplied by BTS's management or label. This highlights the big problem we have now in writing song or album articles, where it's easier than ever to find stories in supposedly reliable sources, but so many of them are press announcements uploaded to the websites of Billboard, Rolling Stone, etc. so actually they aren't independent sources at all. But this is why that previous discussion about uDiscover came to the vague consensus that it should be used with caution – I think their longer articles are probably good, but announcements of a song's release are probably not so independent. Richard3120 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: in defense of the Forbes piece, it was the only bit of coverage written as in depth as it was, and Benjamin is known for his reviews over the years, so I'm more inclined to think it is a legitimate review rather than a regurgitation of a press release (I saw the UMJ release via PR Newswire and it was very diff to what he wrote). But you're very right about everything else. The question is, how do we make more editors aware of the fact that they should cite UDM sparingly? Many aren't aware of discussions like these, or where they can be found, and will keep using the site. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I think that's why we didn't add it to the list last time - adding it to the reliable sources list makes it look like an endorsement of sorts, which wasn't really wasn't the case here. The video games Wikiproject has a third list of "situational sources, which generally contain sources with pretty restrictive conditions for use. On one hand, this is exactly the type of source we'd put there. On the other hand, the situational list would open up a whole new can of worms as far as arguments and disputes. Some VG editors (not me) even want to do away with it. So I guess it's debatable on if we want to move in that direction or not. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Can't blame anyone for not wanting to move forward with situational sources. Especially with source discussion participation being so low lately. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I wanted to bring up that Zombie (The Cranberries song) is currently filled with information by uDiscoverMusic. Based on the information present it looks reliable but the Cranberries were under a label owned by Universal so I'm not exactly sure what to do here. Should we go ahead and remove it all? – zmbro (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I think we should follow WP:PRIMARY. If it's something objective and factual like "it took 2 months to record the song", leave it in. If it's something self-serving it promotional, like "it's an anthem of the 90s and one of the most influential songs of all time", trim it out (or find a better source.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Zmbro, Yes, indeed, my grammar was not the best because I am not a native English speaker. Even though I have improved my English since adding information on this page, I think a native English speaker should make a passage. Oroborvs (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)

I have nominated Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Album page with AllMusic star rating that has no review

Original Gold has one cited source, which is an AllMusic link to a page with a two-star rating but nothing written for a review. This is a compilation album that did not chart anywhere, so I'm wondering if the two-star rating even meets the notability requirement or if someone should delete the page. Danaphile (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It might be an older review that AllMusic has removed, but left the star rating. WP:NALBUMS requires "significant coverage in reliable sources", which a single star rating does not meet. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
For this example, I would argue that it's nowhere near enough, leaving aside the fact that this album appears simply to be a packaging of two records, not an actual "greatest hits" collection or something. My general opinion is that an official AllMusic rating is still usable if a staff-written bio exists, and if there are plenty of other reliable sources that are used for prose ... kind of like any other reliable guide or encyclopedia. (edit conflict) Caro7200 (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I have seen this a few times at AllMusic. It simply means that a staff reviewer was willing to rate the work but not go on-record with a review.
This cannot be used to confer notability on the topic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, though I'd take it a step further and argue that a number score without any explanation (review) is meaningless and not worth adding to an article. I believe that was the stance that WP:VG had for the equivalent (and now defunct) AllGame. Sergecross73 msg me 02:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

25yearslatersite.com

Hi all. Would 25yearslatersite.com be considered reliable? Their team page seems pretty loaded compared to others I've seen, yet I've surprisingly never heard of this site before. Thanks. – zmbro (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I always worry when the site's "board" is listed before the content creators. It leaves me feeling the financials are more important than content. I then looked at the bio for the site's (only) music editor: https://25yearslatersite.com/author/hawk-ripjaw/ and he's been writing, but it doesn't really explain where. Maybe I"m reading too much into this. The titles below show what he has written recently, and none are on music. I looked at the music reviews section, and found https://25yearslatersite.com/2021/09/07/taylor-swifts-all-too-well-the-imagery-of-heartbreak/ which is well done, and appears to be written by a professional. It's not clear how much fact checking was done, but it's better than an AllMusic review, which tend to be short. Simialrly, https://25yearslatersite.com/2021/08/29/halseys-new-rock-album-if-i-cant-have-love-i-want-power-is-something/ is well written and the author seems to have a clear bio, but then https://25yearslatersite.com/2021/08/24/review-deafheaven-infinite-granite/ is shorter and the author bio is lacking. It seems relatively reliable for reviews. I'll let a few others opine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed about "Hawk Ripjaw" (possibly not his real name); it's confusing to look at the music editor's page and find nothing but synopses of some supernatural TV show of which I've never heard. I looked at some of the music articles, written by a sizeable variety of authors. I checked the "Wolfgang Van Halen's Mammoth WVH Debut" article (by one Viktor Landon) which was interesting enough, although it started back when Eddie Van Halen was born, and would have benefitted from some good copy-editing. It appears to be Landon's only contribution to the site. Jason Sheppard, who interviewed Alannah Myles (apparently by e-mail or Skype or something) has written quite a few pieces, but is much more focused on film and TV topics. The interview was okay (it's an interview, after all, and with a performer I believe I would not care to spend a lot of time with), but I can't say it was really impressive. The only piece by Dave Hughes, The Who Sell Out: Super Deluxe Edition Is Super Sized for Maximum Enjoyment is mostly professional, but includes some personal connections to The Who's album and also throws in his suggested Side 6 (which the release does not have).
The 25YearsLater site is eclectic, with a focus on things from 25 years ago with what seems like a mention of Twin Peaks on every single page. It is clearly not just some throw-it-together "20 albums you forgot you loved" click-bait site. I haven't found any great writing, but I think it could be reliably used, with discretion and judgement. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Spotify as primary source for release date and labels

On the Spotify page for I Died for This!?, the release date is listed as August 27, 2021, and the record labels as "Stray Society, distributed through Shady Records/Interscope Records". However, the article also has a reliable secondary source that only lists Shady (it may also have said August 26 at some point, but currently the date matches up with Spotify). Would the primary override the secondary source, and be a valid ref for the release date (in this regard hypothetically)/listing all three labels on the article, or do we default to the secondary in this regard and leave the article as it currently stands? User:Yappy2bhere seems to think the latter based on their most recent edits, but my instinct would be to go by Spotify as I did in my previous edits. QuietHere (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I have found Spotify as a RS for release details, however I do not know that they meet Wikipedia's criteria as there is no author, no editorial board, and no guarantee that there is a way to correct errors. With hat said, the record labels tell them when they to release and if they get it wrong, there would likely be financial ramifications for them. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 05:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
What I think is that there are RS saying before the 26th that the album will be released on the 27th, and a RS saying on the 26th that the album has been released ("GRIP has shared his new album..."), which to me says that the album was released on or before the 26th though it was expected to be released on the 27th. "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place". Spotify probably says "27th" because it's said "27th" since the release date was announced. Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Worth noting here that the Complex article (linked above) is dated August 27. As far as I can tell, there's no question about whether the date is actually correct (Though the labels question may still be valid), and I'm simply asking hypothetically whether Spotify (or any other music streaming/purchasing service) can act as a valid primary source in the event of a conflict.
Also, Spotify album pages aren't available to view until the second the album is released. I've waited 'til midnight for many album releases and can tell you that they aren't there until they show up on the dot. Thusly, the page didn't say anything until the album was released, and if it says 27 (which it does) then that must be the right number. Tangential: Some retroactively released albums, such as those that predate Spotify, will have their original release date listed instead of whenever they were uploaded, but that doesn't apply in this case because the album is new.
Oh, and while I'm here it's also worth mentioning that August 27 was a Friday, and the majority of new albums release on Fridays as it's the start of the industry's sales-tracking week. See List of 2021 albums (July–December) for an example of that pattern. Sure, that's not a guarantee that any given album will release on a Friday, but it's common enough that it's valid to bring up here. QuietHere (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
No QuietHere, it's not worth mentioning--it's WP:OR with a pinch of WP:SYNTH. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Yappy2bhere Would the "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages" clause in the first paragraph of OR not apply here? I'm not using it as the base reasoning for my edit, just mentioning it as useful info in the discussion. QuietHere (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
As long as it doesn't leak into mainspace you're good to go. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
This part of the conversation migrated to my talk page but is still relevant to the larger discussion so I figured I should link it here. QuietHere (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Not relevant in this case, but like all internet sources (artist's official website, certifying body, streaming website), I would take any release dates that they state for older albums before the internet era with a large pinch of salt. As Walter Görlitz says, they use the date supplied to them by the record label, and there's no way of knowing if the label got it right either. For example, Spotify says that Bryter Layter was released on March 6, 1970, which is definitely incorrect – this date has probably come about because the album was originally believed for many years to have been released in November 1970, and was then discovered to have been delayed to March 5, 1971... Spotify appears to have mangled these two dates together and moved them to the nearest Friday in March 1970. So I wouldn't say that Spotify can always be used as a reliable source for release dates, no. Richard3120 (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, the problem even exists with 90s and early 2000s rock albums on Apple Music in my experience. I'm also not a fan of using streaming websites as sources as allowing it will inevitably lead to people adding streaming links more for stealth-promotion motivations than actually citing anything. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if Spotify is aggregating data themselves and not simply renting it from another provider. That lack of provenance is one reason I'm wary of Spotify as a (tertiary) source. Another is that it seems to run foul of WP:NOTRSMUSIC's online retailer proscription. I've been seeing "Try the TIDAL Web Player" spam in the references lately, directing traffic to a Spotify competitor, so it's not a theoretical consideration. Goose, gander. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The Sunday Mail

Hey all. Would something like this from The Sunday Mail be considered reliable? Thanks. – zmbro (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that as the Sunday sister paper of the Daily Mail, it would fall under WP:DAILYMAIL and be removed. I have to say that despite the fact I loathe the newspaper in question, I'm not entirely in agreement with the blanket removal of all uses of the Mail and likewise The Sun as a source... I feel they could still be used for reporting objective facts like "the Prime Minister met the President of France yesterday at his home in London" which are unbiased and not sensationalist... unfortunately 99% of their daily content fits exactly that description. Richard3120 (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Tidal

I start an discussion at WP:RSN, anyone can add their opinions about this website's reliably. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Commercial performance sections

Hey all. I'm wondering what exactly warrants when there should be a commercial performance section in an article? While expanding Low (David Bowie album) I realized it charted quite a bit over the years, which got me thinking whether or not the article needs one. I haven't made a section for any of Bowie's articles yet, even though The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars had one before I began work on that and still has it currently. I found it wasn't an issue working on his early records since they all (sadly for him, conveniently for me) never charted, so I didn't have to worry about them. But now I'm wondering whether or not his later extremely successful releases do warrant them (i.e. I added a basic one for Let's Dance (David Bowie album)). I've primarily been adding info related to the chart placements in the UK and US in the prose but have ignored most other countries. I will be taking Low to FAC in the next few months so I was wondering what others' thoughts are on this? Thanks. – zmbro (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be something that has crept in relatively recently, and I'm not sure why. It's not mentioned in the style guide, and to be honest, editors usually only use it to repeat the chart table and sales/certifications table in prose form, so it seems like a pretty pointless duplication to me in most cases. Richard3120 (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I disagree that it's only used to repeat info from chart/sales/cert tables. Such sections also mention any preorder/sales records that were broken or set, whether an album was the artist's first to chart in specific countries, or in x number of countries, any records set on specific charts, if it was the best-selling or worst-performing release of their career or in a particular territory, if it was their highest-certified album, last album to be certified, or if it failed to sell well/receive certification etc. All things that can't be deduced from the aforementioned tables. While I work in mainly the kpop sphere of music articles, many rock, pop, latin and rap album articles contain similar sections that don't just regurgitate sales+chart performance, but also highlight commercial impact if applicable. But I think you'd be able to tell if the section is necessary at all based on the information available to you about the album. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Carlobunnie: that's a very fair point. I'm just saying that seems to be what many editors do with the "commercial performance" section, and it isn't worth adding if that's all it is, in my opinion. But for newer songs and albums, you're right, there are often various statistics available. So I'll revise my stance and say I don't think it's so useful for older albums like Low, because many of these details are/were not available... for example, weekly sales figures weren't available in any country before the 1990s, and few countries in the 1970s had certifications. I guess Zmbro can decide whether a commercial performance section would add any further information to the article not contained elsewhere. Richard3120 (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Richard3120, That's exactly what I thought. Even the commercial performance section of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is only seven total sentences. For albums like Bowie's they definitely don't see necessary so I think I'll keep it that way. Thank you! – zmbro (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: yes, it is harder when it comes to older albums, hence my mentioning information availability at the end :) As it stands, the article looks really good so far though. Zmbro unless there's significantly more commercial data not yet mentioned beyond the last few lines at the end of the "Artwork and release" section, I don't think a CP section is needed tbqh. But I see you already decided that while I was typing this so I guess my comment is redundant now. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
In articles I write/maintain, I think it's worth having in higher profile releases - Fear Innoculum or Tickets to My Downfall. But wasn't planning on adding it to lower profile stuff like Out of the Vein, where a sentence or two in a reception section is probably plenty. Sergecross73 msg me 23:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

OfficialCharts.com as a reliable source for UK album sales

BBC One Radio also keeps charts that track things like album sales in the UK. It is an official arm of BBC and a more popular and well known program than BBC Music's webpage. BCC One Radio specifically links to The Official Chart website for reviewing past chart information from BBC One source.

BBC One site --> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/TYv9MtpnqFRMPKP7QFcYfW/want-to-know-who-is-number-1-this-week
Link on BBC One site --> https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-chart/

If you read their about me it sounds like the UK equivalent of Billboard. https://www.officialcharts.com/who-we-are/the-official-charts/ Would you please add this as a reliable source in the table?

Subuwu (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It's kind of obvious, because the Official Charts Company (OCC) are the actual organisation who compile the sales data for the UK charts (I think they still use Millward Brown for the actual data collection), so of course they are the reliable source for all UK chart sales data and statistics. So they're not just a "reliable source" ,they are the ACTUAL source. BBC Radio 1 don't keep charts, and they don't create the charts for the Top 40 each week – they use the data supplied to them by the OCC. This has always been the case, right back to 1969, when the first official UK chart was created, which was a joint venture by the first chart compilers, the British Market Research Bureau (BMRB), and the BBC and the major record labels, who funded the chart. It's more accurate to say that the OCC are the UK equivalent of MRC Data, who compile the US charts for Billboard, and Music Week is the equivalent of Billboard, as both magazines are the trade paper of the music industry in each country. Richard3120 (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Ok. So we agree that OCC is a reliable source. Would you please add it to the wikiProject Albums' Sources page? I relied on this page to create articles for this project. Never knew about OCC till I found it on my own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources

What I mean is, I don't think we need to add the actual providers of the charts to the reliable sources page, otherwise it would be very long, trying to add the chart providers from every country in the world that has charts. The official chart providers from each country are already given at WP:GOODCHARTS. Using the {{single chart}} template automatically notes the chart provider from each country. Richard3120 (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
This is my understanding as well - it's simply not on the list because no one has in good faith questioned whether or not a nations official chart was reliable or not. Everyone knows it is. I don't oppose its inclusion, but it's eventually going to be a problem if we start listing every single country's National chart on here... Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I just went ahead and put a link to the charts page in the "See also" section of Albums/Sources. Hopefully that's a good resolution.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
It does. Really, we could make a short "charts" section too, (similar to the instrument-specific type sections) to make it stand out more, and just link to GOODCHARTS and BADCHARTS too, rather than listing them all here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks 3family6 - I agree, just providing a link to WP:GOODCHARTS and WP:BADCHARTS from WP:RSMUSIC would be easier than just adding them all again to the reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: I am very sorry. I didn't realize it was on the goodcharts page. My bad. To me it is difficult to understand the difference between a chart and the generally reliable sources table because Billboard is listed in both. No need to make any changes at this point. I feel this was more of a learning exercise for me in this wikiproject. Now I fully understand the resources available to improve pages. I greatly apprecaite everyone who responded and shared knowledge with me. Richard3120, I now understand what you meant in your first comment. I look forward to continuing to contribute to this project. A kitten for you! 67.59.1.157 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
No problem – I think it actually would be beneficial for future editors to have that link to WP:GOODCHARTS anyway. The reason that Billboard is listed under WP:RSMUSIC is not for the charts, but as a magazine which has reliable information about music news, record releases, certification awards, etc. Richard3120 (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
In that case, OCC should still get listed because it's also a music magazine which I've seen used as a source a number of times. Having a separate sections for charts makes sense, but also an entry for the magazine aspect of the site, and perhaps a note in the entry to specify what it's referring to (And adding such a note for the Billboard entry as well). QuietHere (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@QuietHere: I'm not in the UK right now, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it actually a monthly version of Music Week rather than an OCC magazine? Richard3120 (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Oh sorry, I don't know anything about a print magazine (I'm also not in the UK), I'm talking about their online presence (see this search for examples). I've seen them deliver the same sort of coverage that Billboard does on their website, and that's what I'm basing my assessment on. QuietHere (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Credits for albums released in a 2nd language

I finally got around to creating a Personnel section for this Japanese album, which also contains Jpn vers of songs from the orig Kor album and didn't think about it until I was three-quarters of the way through it, but is it allowed to link to the credits section of the orig album's article at the top of the section, rather than having to duplicate common credits for 7 of the 13 songs? Because there's hella credits on this thing. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Do the 7 of 13 Kor songs you mentioned have the exact same personnel as their Jpn version? TheCartoonEditor (talk) (contribs) 12:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@TheCartoonEditor: they have mostly the same credits so far with only a few discrepancies that I've picked up on so far, like having diff digital editors, or a diff mixer etc. I've been manually comparing the two, but it takes time because I only own the Kor album, and to compare it to the Japanese credits I have to use screenshots on my phone from a YouTube unboxing. I can say that for the track "On", it has a super long list of credits because a choir, horn section, and more was used, and they're all listed on the Jpn vers as well. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@Carlobunnie: Is there a more reliable source where you can get the credits for the Jpn version than a youtube unboxing? Is there maybe a Tidal link where it shows everybody? TheCartoonEditor (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The Michigan Daily

Is this a reliable source? It seems very notable and famed, but I don't think student writers have adequate credentials and editorial oversight to satisfy the rules of Wikipedia, generally. Maybe I'm wrong though, so I'd like to know what you guys think. dannymusiceditor oops 15:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The Michigan Daily has a strong editorial policy [5], is financially independent of the university [6] (though student journalists are still bound by university policies on plagiarism and deceit), and is well-regarded by other journalists [7]. It has absolutely no place in a Wikipedia music article. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, it is without question a better source than Metal Injection [8] which has no discernable editorial policy and is sponsored by Likes.io ("Buy Instagram followers, get instant delivery, and grow your brand") and WritersPerHour.com ("If you’re ... asking 'where can I find people to write my essay' ... you’ve come to the right place."). Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, while I'd usually be hesitant about student newspapers, University of Michigan is a pretty major college and they've got their stuff together editorial-policy-wise, so I don't see a problem using it, though I'd probably use them sparingly. (Not sure they're needed in high profile albums with tons of source coverage - no need to place their review in a Taylor Swift album article with 10 Rolling Stone-level reviews always present.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't need the sarcasm and calling out. I asked a simple question. I have my answer, and didn't see any discussion on it, which I've now gotten. dannymusiceditor oops 19:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
DannyMusicEditor - I hope you're not referring to me. I didn't mean any ill-will in my comment. Didn't mean for it to be a call out. I was speaking purely hypothetically. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Sergecross73, no, I was talking to Yappy. We talked it out. dannymusiceditor oops 17:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Alice in Chains' Jar of Flies

Even though Jar of Flies just barely surpasses the 30-minute mark, I'm starting to think it should be reclassified as an album rather than an EP after reading this: "An album may contain as many or as few tracks as required. In the United States, The Recording Academy's rules for Grammy Awards state that an album must comprise a minimum total playing time of 15 minutes with at least five distinct tracks or a minimum total playing time of 30 minutes with no minimum track requirement. In the United Kingdom, the criteria for the UK Albums Chart is that a recording counts as an "album" if it either has more than four tracks or lasts more than 25 minutes."

What do you think? Shaneymike (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The sources call it an EP, it is sold as an EP,[9] and the concept of EP has varied since they exist.[10] The Grammy ruling seems to be a recent one as it was not here in 2015.[11] (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
For me, it depends on what the band classifies it as. In some cases, you have albums like Wild Honey and Ye, both of which are like 23 min long, but the artists classify them as studio albums. If AiC classifies Jar of Flies as an EP, then we should classify it like that. – zmbro (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. We should go by how reliable sources classify it, not these arbitrary song/length standards, which are largely ignored/unknown in the industry. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I always remembered it being described as an EP in the UK. Billboard calls it an EP, and in fact has an article about how it was the first ever EP to top the Billboard 200 [12]. Calling it an album now would deprive it of that distinction. Richard3120 (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: I was just about to say I do remember hearing that distinction, and yes that did play a factor in me discussing this here before arbitrarily changing anything. Between the quality of the material on Jar of Flies and its length at just barely over 30 minutes, I can't help thinking that calling it an EP cheapens it a little bit. However, if that's what the band themselves prefer to call it, then yes of course we should defer to their decision like @Zmbro: said, especially if length standards are largely ignored by the industry like @Sergecross73: said. I guess we'll see if times change. Shaneymike (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Charts table

Why charts table is so bad? Why it use "French Albums" formula suggesting that "French Albums" is official chart name while it is just description and shouldn't be capitalised "French albums"? Why just don't use country name France with chart or organisation name in bracket or both? Why Canadian or British charts are linked while Irish and Polish aren't? Why some countries has chart name in bracket while others has just name of organiation which compiles certain chart? Can we fix it? Eurohunter (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Genius reviews

I think we should add Genius as one of the websites to be careful about when choosing the reviews. Users post them in the forum, too, like this one. --ChoHyeri (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@ChoHyeri: As much as I wish Genius was a reliable source...it's mostly user generated. Good catch. 67.59.1.157 (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's only relegated to use for stuff like writing credits and track times, if that even. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@ChoHyeri: Where on Genius are you finding reviews? If it's just from the message boards, then I would think those are obviously USERG and not to be touched, thus not really needing any notice (Unless other sites with message boards/public comments get similar notices). As per the editorial side, do they post official reviews? I've never seen any, only news coverage (which I would consider reliable given how extensive this staff list is among other factors). If there are official reviews then I wouldn't count them out right away. QuietHere (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@QuietHere: You're right, I'm referring to the message boards whose url goes genius.com/discussions/... which absolutely falls under USERG. As I found this review which seems kinda official, though, I was wondering why Genius wasn't listed together with AbsolutePunk and Sputnikmusic. --ChoHyeri (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh yeah, you're not wrong about that. Yeah, a notice about USERG reviews could be useful, I don't see why not, especially if you've found editors citing them. QuietHere (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Let the Bad Times Roll#Requested move 30 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Let the Bad Times Roll#Requested move 30 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC started on track listing sections in albums

An RfC has been started at MOS:MUSIC relating to album articles. All comments are welcome. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Slant Magazine

Hey all. Do we consider Slant Magazine reliable? I just added it to The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars but saw here it's come under fire over the years. Thanks. – zmbro (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't actually say it's come under fire for its reliability though. And I've never seen any reason not to doubt it. I don't know much about Ed Gonzalez, the co-founder who handles the film side of the magazine, but he's a member of the New York Film Critics' Circle and has written for The Village Voice and Los Angeles Times among others, so clearly he knows what he's talking about. But the other co-founder, Sal Cinquemani, was a well-established music writer and regular contributor to Billboard and Rolling Stone for a couple of decades before founding Slant. So this was not a online blog founded by two young media graduates. Richard3120 (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing there that should really affect our views on reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Saw this in my watchlist and was surprised to see it being discussed. For what it's worth I have always seen Slant as reputable, and Richard has provided solid evidence that it is. dannymusiceditor oops 16:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

RM: Final (album) → Final (Vol.1)

An editor has requested for Final (album) to be moved to Final (Vol.1). Since you had some involvement with Final (album), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Havelock Jones (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources and niche musical genres

Hello Wikialbums project,

As wikipedia tries to expand the article space and content for Music Genres, albums andElectronic Music, I have to ask this question...

The most reliable sources (e.g. Rolling Stone, CNN Music, BBC Music, etc.) do not cover certain genres of music at all. We must rule out that a niche electronic genre will ever be covered by a major, popular, news station or magazine.

So can we ever determine notability without such reliable sources and significant coverage by these sources? Is context important here? For example, who is an expert on Psybient, Downtempo, or Drone music? Who can really claim to be that? What qualifications do you need (i.e. self-published) to have a e-magazine with editors that rates, reviews, and writes articles about those genres and be considered "reliable".

I think an album would have notoriety if several secondary, independent sources from many countries have covered a subject (album). At least that is some international notoriety. What about the number of secondary, independent but only semi-reliable sources, like if 40 different e-magazines that review ambient music, all wrote articles about a particular ambient album?

Just food for thought. I understand the strictness of notoriety, reliability and independence (non-self published) sources in Wikipedia. Yet as we approach the fringes of wikipedia's article space which we aim to improve, how it can be possible without context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.59.1.157 (talk • contribs) 13:45, September 24, 2021 (UTC)

You do make a very valid point about where to find coverage of underground electronic music. ReGen seems to be the go-to online website for this type of music, but I'm still not convinced that it passes WP:RS. In the UK at least, The Wire and Electronic Sound are the only magazines that will go anywhere near these genres. But I'm not sure what the answer is. Richard3120 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Studio album vs compilation album

Long: It is not explained what studio album exactly is. According to definition I was able to easly find explain studio album as contains newly written and recorded material but may also be released years after it has been recorded. I would like to see example and I can imagine it would be release of previously recorded (finished) and cancelled album for example (inlcuding "album design") announced as real album, not just songs? Would it be case when singer is recording certain album and not finishing it or finishing but then he decide to record another album with different tracks and album title so he released only second album while first album remains unreleased. Eurohunter (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Short: What in the case of 12-track "album" containing self-published tracks via social media for free (12 out of 50 for example) - never announced or released album released and promoted as "old album". I mean here this is like some artist recorded 50 mp3 songs and uploaded for its website for free download then few years later 12 of those songs was chosen and released as "old album" - it is not reissue of old album but old tracks - this is contradictory. You can't release "old album" when it was never existed then. Eurohunter (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It's usually pretty straight forward. Studio albums are generally all songs recorded for that given release. Compilation albums are usually a bunch of songs taken from various other releases (other albums, singles, b-sides, random one-off songs, etc) put together for another release. Reliable sources generally agree on the classification too, so even if you don't understand, you can usually find reliable sources who will define it for you too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: It's exactly as I wrote above so would it be compilation? Sources don't know how to describe it too so they just use album name instead of describing it. Eurohunter (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
It's hard to answer. Your description is confusing and you didn't link to what album/artist you're referring to. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm guessing the artist will be Basshunter, as Eurohunter mainly works on articles related to him. Richard3120 (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Why it's confusing? I tried to explain it in the best possible factual way. Eurohunter (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, you still haven't even told me the name of the album, so I have no means of looking into it any further. And I don't understand the contradiction you're referring to. They don't need to be released on an a prior album for it to be a complication. They just generally have to be recorded for some other purpose at first. So, it sounds more like a compilation album. But I have nothing to go off of other than your interpretation on the scenario, so it's hard to say definitively. Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The "self-published tracks via social media" sounds like Journals (Justin Bieber album). (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Yup, good find. There's also Cover Version from Steven Wilson, which was 12 songs that had previously released as one off limited singles (and I think social media.) We consider that one a compilation album too. While the article is pretty undeveloped, I can confirm, as someone who has done a lot of writing for Wilson's various projects, no publications group that release as part of his core, numbered studio album discography. So, based off the info I've been told, I'd call the album in question a compilation album. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

New Zealand chart at nztop40.co.nz

If album name was changed from "NOW YOU'RE GONE" to "NOW YOU'RE GONE: SPECIAL EDITION" after 20 weeks on chart what that means? Is it combined sales of standard and special edition? Eurohunter (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

That's probably more of a question for them, not us. Usually, it seems like special/deluxe edition figures are combined with the original album release Because they're mostly the same thing with a couple of bonus songs tacked on. But it's not like I'm an expert with the New Zealand music industry, so I can't really answer definitively... Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
It definitely depends on the individual country's music charts, and sometimes it can be a mess. In the UK, Amy Winehouse's Back to Black reached number one first in its original form, and then in its deluxe edition, but the sales of both were later combined. Richard3120 (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: So I can see that there were two independent entries for Back to Black and Back to Black - The Deluxe Edition so they were merged after Back to Black - The Deluxe Edition reached week 55? How to verify it? Meanwhile "Now You're Gone (Special Edition)" looks like the same entry counted as week 21 but just with different name and cover (pixelated). I don't know how they got it. Eurohunter (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: this is exactly the problem... we don't know when they changed it, or why, and we can't verify it. Like Sergecross73 says, this isn't something Wikipedia can help with, you will have to ask the chart companies directly. Richard3120 (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: As somebody who edits charts quite a lot, this is a common thing. Once another version/edition of an album is released, some charts will switch to showing that and combine all other editions into the one chart entry. Some rare cases separate them, but usually if one edition of an album starts outselling the others, most charts will show that edition. I would say that is what has happened here, because New Zealand's charts have done this before. Ss112 14:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Vuelve (album) for featured article nomination

I have nominated Vuelve (album) by Ricky Martin for featured article and would greatly appreciate any input on the article! Erick (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Score instrumentation

Where would be the best place for a section covering the score's breakdown in this article? I referred mainly to Music of The Lord of the Rings film series for guidance as I built the page, but I've hit a wall now. I have two articles (1, 2 that I'd like to use, but I'm unsure if an "Instrumentation" section is the the way to proceed, or if it should be named something else? And if it is correct, idk whether to put it before "Eclipse" or after TAASOD. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal on Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (soundtrack)

I have started merger discussion about Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (soundtrack), located at Talk:Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason#Merge soundtrack article? --George Ho (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Synth and Software.com

Can Synth and Software.com (SNS) be considered as a reliable source for synthesizers and other electronic music tech? They seem to have some really notable contributors, such as Mark Jenkins who wrote excellent books about electronic music and synthesizers that are widely used as sources and references and he is considered to be an expert on the topic. He regularly writes articles on this site. The most widely known work of Mark Jenkins is this book and it is cited on numerous pages on Wikipedia. Just after quick search, here are some pages that cite from his book: Synthesizer, E-mu Systems, Alesis Andromeda A6, Roger Powell, String synthesizer, Synthesizers.com and Switched-On Rock. Mark Jenkins is also cited and this book is mentioned in this article by Red Bull Music Academy which is considered to be a reliable source per WP:RSINSTRUMENT. On the other hand, many news and announcements on the site are simply credited to "Synth and Software Newsroom". I've already asked this at WP:RSN and so far the consensus seemed to be that this site is a source of lower quality. But I think that the fact that such a widely cited author is a regular contributor to the site could warrant consideration. Maybe even addition to WP:RSINSTRUMENT, but with a note that it is of lower quality. StingR (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd love to say "yes" immediately, because it would be great to have more sources for electronic music on Wikipedia. It looks like it's professionally produced, there are some big-name contributors (the other name that jumped out at me was Roger Linn, the inventor of the LinnDrum drum machine and hi-fi equipment bearing his name), and the publisher produces several other online magazines as well (here's their website). The things that hold me back from an unqualified approval is the lack of any mention of an editorial team (although I'm sure there is one), and the "Sponsored" and "Endorsing Artist" sections in the publisher's Advertising Disclosures here. Although this kind of thing is probably par for the course these days. Richard3120 (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I share your concerns. All I could find regarding the "editorial team" is Geary Yelton on the contributor list and a mention of an another contributor named Nick Batzdorf who is the content director according to the about page. It could be that the editorial team is indeed made up of these two people and it seems that they rely mostly on other contributors. Probably the publisher doesn't see a need for a large team, because of the niche nature of the publication. Also, these two people seem to have a professional background, just like most of the contributors (that is if we accept that their bios are accurate). Well, at least they are honest about the fact that they have paid reviews. I think that can be worked around by solely using their reviews for sources of more generic things such as names, mentions and descriptions of instruments. At least their news do look like they write them themselves and they don't just repost marketing press releases, even if such articles are credited to "Synth and Software Newsroom". StingR (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Not notable information/References

What references add for format, credits, tracklist or other informations from official shop or social media like free song if they weren't cited in any articles by media sites like Billboard, BBC, Digital Spy etc.? Direct references to social media post would be bad source but official store like Spotify or CD retiler - I would say it's the same type of source. If you consider AllMusic - if you own CD's you will see time durations, titles and lot of other data are inforrect and there is no other sorce than CD itself. There is a lot of posts in social media about when album is announced or when it will be released (notability...) but often it's not cited by media so in this way a lot of information is lost. Apple Music is often used for tracklist but should it be? So why to not add other informations from social media? There is also problem with release dates - digital stores has incorrect release dates so it's impossible to realise when it was released. Often they replace original dates with wrong dates or they replace release and add wrong date on start. Eurohunter (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ss112: @Richard3120: @Sergecross73: Anyone? I actually don't know how to reference track lists, credits or release history. FA or GA usally don't have such sections or it's unreferehnced (singles). Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
You don't need to cite track lists for albums that are already released, and credits are usually cited by the album liner notes. Release dates are usually just documented through every day Music sources. I don't know about everyone else, but I didn't answer your original post before because I couldn't tell what you were trying to ask. (And half the time I answer your questions I get a vibe that you're irritated or exasperated with me or something.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the fact that articles that get to GA or FA without citations for track listings is a good indication that these don't need a reference. You are right about digital stores having incorrect release dates, especially for older singles and albums – this is something both Serge and I have mentioned in the past, and we have said that these should be avoided if possible for release dates. One problem with using social media as a source is that often you need to have an account with Instagram, Facebook, etc. to be able to see what the artist has written, so other editors can't always check the source... this is why WP:ELNO point #10 exists. Richard3120 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Blitz to reduce missing album cover backlog?

Has there ever been a campaign to reduce the Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover backlog? Or, might there be interest? ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems like a very large percentage of them are film soundtracks... I wonder if the album cover is the same as the film poster, that would violate WP:NFCC, as essentially duplicating the picture. Richard3120 (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure for non-film soundtracks Discogs could be an option. That's where I find a good majority of album covers, quite a few of which are high quality. – zmbro (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh of course, and Amazon is another place where you can find album covers. I just wonder if there's a good reason this category exists... the two albums I've found so far which are not film soundtracks have no references at all and appear to be non-notable, so they should probably be deleted. Richard3120 (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about high-quality images... a bot always reduces them for fair use purposes. I use Amazon for album covers often. Sure, there are other issues with articles in this category, but the backlog exists nonetheless. Would editors be interested in a backlog reduction campaign during the month of October? @Gravelove: I've noticed you adding lots of covers to album articles lately. Any thoughts here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The backlog currently lists over 24,000 infoboxes without artwork, which seems like a rather daunting task to try to reduce. I would not be opposed to helping out stuff like 50 Years of Blonde on Blonde, an article that has a few sources so there's sure to be an artwork somewhere. On the other hand, if the majority are film soundtracks, is there enough info to warrant an infobox at all? Especially if the film soundtrack doesn't even have its own WP page? – zmbro (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
That was kind of my feeling as well – I think first we should check that adding the album cover wouldn't violate WP:NFCC if it's the same as the film poster, otherwise it would be a lot of wasted work, adding an image that will later be deleted. If it is a WP:NFCC violation, then the better idea would be to remove the album from the category altogether, seeing as many don't have their own article. Richard3120 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
It will be a daunting task nonetheless if it has to be done manually (because if we're being honest, I don't imagine anyone here has the energy to do that). I vote that if a soundtrack doesn't have its own page it shouldn't warrant an infobox, especially if all that's there is just a sentence then the tracklisting. Idk if there's a bot that would be available to do that or what but I just think all of our times would be much more beneficial improving other aspects of the site, rather than individually going through 24,000 different articles... – zmbro (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
This search shows 8,874 pages that have both an Infobox film and Infobox album,[13] which usually appears when both the film and soundtrack are covered by the same article. I agree with Zmbro, unless there is a separate soundtrack article, an infobox album should not be used. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind the ongoing discussion(s) about other issues, but I'm specifically curious if there are editors who wish to reduce this backlog. If so, I'm happy to create a separate page for the campaign. However, I don't want to do so unless there are at least 5 other editors who are interested in participating.

So, if you are interested in participating, please indicate so below:

Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm very much interested in this! I've been specifically working through Category:Wikipedia requested images of albums first because that seemed less daunting. Gravelove (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Great, thanks for expressing interest. More info to come, assuming others express interest as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've been bold and created Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Backlog elimination drive: Album covers. As of this moment, there are exactly 24,000 entries in the category. I invite editors to participate and continue the discussion re: film soundtracks there, if preferred. @Gravelove: FYI! Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 14:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film § What_do_to_about_infoboxes_for_soundtracks_in_film_articles?

Another editor has flagged that some of these entries may be for non-notable albums and therefore uploading cover art may be a waste of time. I'd like to clarify, the goal of this campaign is NOT to upload 24,000 images. The goal is to reduce the backlog/category by uploading images, nominating non-notable entries for deletion, coming to a consensus for what to do about soundtrack infoboxes in film articles, etc. Help from project members is appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been removing unnecessary soundtrack infoboxes from film articles from time to time. It's amazing to me how many there actually are. – zmbro (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: The ongoing campaign to reduce the backlog is chugging along slowly. Looks like we might be able to reduce the backlog by 1,000 entries. I was hoping we'd be able to address some of the major issues (soundtrack albums, articles with multiple infoboxes, etc.) to see a more significant reduction, but discussions have stalled. Thanks to all who have helped thus far! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Result: Well, discussions didn't lead to any major decisions about what to do with many of the entries in this backlog category. But, the backlog was reduced by nearly 1,000 entries, so that's some progress. Thanks to all who helped with this collaboration, and hopefully discussions can continue so we can make a bigger dent here. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

List of artists who have recorded "Jingle Bells"

I would like to develop this list, make tables etc. According to discussion we could move it to List of recordings of "Jingle Bells" but what about format? Separate sections for recorded songs and released singles in discography style or we could have two independend lists (probably not) like list of recordings of "Jingle Bells" and discography of "Jingle Bells" (?)? Anyway is current alphabetical division good solution? Eurohunter (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Chart performance

How to describe it? Chart → entry position and date, peak position and date + other information like it held this position for 3 weeks + numer of weeks on chart if it's 20-30? "Entry position and date" + "peak position and date" for every chart where song had top positions (5 counties for example)? Eurohunter (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand all of your question, but maybe this is an answer anyway: "It is generally discouraged to give an account of a release's entire chart history or trajectory; only its peak position is relevant", point 6 from "Per-release" at WP:DISCOGSTYLE. Does that help? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think Eurohunter is asking if he can write something like, "The song entered the chart on October 30, 2021 at number 56. It peaked five weeks later at number 34, where it stayed for two weeks. The song spent 12 weeks in the chart." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard3120 (talk • contribs) 18:32, October 30, 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Exactly. I'm asking because my text would be like 5x the same text just different country and numbers and I don't like when others add date and # but no number of weeks for France but for Germany they add only # and number of weeks and no date and lets say song had #1 in both countries and charted 10 weeks in both countries. I know there may be situation like it had different topping like more weeks at #1 or only number 2 but spent 100 weeks on chart etc. so different "special" statistics could be mentioned additionally but otherwise it may be boring as I wrote above. Eurohunter (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, generally only note things like debuts, peaks, and any noteworthy accomplishments. (Sometimes publications make notes when songs stay on a chart for a year, or have a massive spike in sales due to a deluxe edition or promotional event.) Don't just list off lots of mundane weekly chart ups and downs. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move input

Hey all. I have opened a requested move for David Bowie's The Buddha of Suburbia here and I would greatly appreciate input there so it's not forgotten. Thanks! – zmbro (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Not a double A Side

Don't Shut Me Down and I Still Have Faith In You are two individual releases never available on one CD single or vinyl. THey released two different CD singles and the latter one additionally on vinyl. So it's not a double a Side and was thus listed separately on the UK singles charts, unlike 1979 single Angeleyes/Voulez Vous which was indeed a proper double A-Side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.204.225.91 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Correct. And what is the point you are making? Richard3120 (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
One mentions "double A side" on the photo caption. Is that it? I'm not seeing any other mentions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Alternative text for album cover in infobox

@WOSlinker: Hello! Until recently, when I was reading an article about an album, and I hovered over the album cover in the infobox, I would see any alternative text that had been set for the album cover image. But now I'm not seeing the alternative text. I'm still seeing it for other images though -- for example, on the Main Page. Is it possible that this edit broke the display of the alternative text for the album covers? I don't know much about how this stuff works -- I had to ask about it at WP:VPT just to get this far -- but I'm pretty sure we do want the alternative text to display. Though that might depend on someone's browser, or browser settings. I'm using Firefox on a Windows PC. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mudwater:, Yes, it was that change. This can be fixed by updating Infobox album with this change. Would you like me to do that? -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@WOSlinker: Yes, please do. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I've done that. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@WOSlinker: Thanks! Looks like we're all good now for the album infobox. Out of curiosity, what was the purpose of the change to Module:InfoboxImage? And, might other infoboxes also be affected by that change? — Mudwater (Talk) 13:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
There was a short discussion on the talk page, saying the we really shouldn't be setting the alt value to the title when the alt is missing. I've also update infobox song to set the title now as well, similar to infobox album. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks again for your help! — Mudwater (Talk) 15:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@WOSlinker: Hello again! It appears to me that {{Infobox film}} and {{Infobox book}} are in need of similar adjustments. Could you look at those too please? — Mudwater (Talk) 00:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. -- WOSlinker (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@WOSlinker: Excellent. Thank you. Also, I wonder how many more of these are lurking out there, and if anyone else is talking about them somewhere. Hmm, here's another one now: {{Infobox artist discography}}. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Good, thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal on a Bridget Jones's Diary soundtrack

I started merger discussion about the article Bridget Jones's Diary: Music from the Motion Picture, located at Talk:Bridget Jones's Diary#Merge soundtrack article? --George Ho (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change to text in track-listing authorship credits, generated by the Track listing template

There is a discussion about wording of the authorship credits generated by the {{Track listing}} template going on here, which is likely to be of interest to this Wikiproject. Please join the discussion if interested. TJRC (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Eternal Blue (album)

Greetings, colleagues. This is the debut album by Spiritbox. It is mostly complete, but missing something important: the album's cover art. I have seen two cover arts for it - there's the one that was known long before the album's release and currently is used on most digital retailers (excluding Amazon which uses the latter), such as Apple Music; on the other hand, there was another art which is shown on AllMusic and is also evidenced, though technically unreliably, by a Redditor who ordered the album on vinyl. Sources I checked seemed to disagree which was used on the CDs. How do we go about choosing which art to add? dannymusiceditor oops 21:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, the digital edition features the blue cover, while the physical edition features the white cover. I'd use the one that's more known, in the same way Rebel Heart solved it. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Metal.de to WP:MUSICRS?

Metal.de seems reliable? It seems to have editorial oversight and a defined team of contributors. Geschichte (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

If there are no input I will boldly add it. Geschichte (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I think you should go into a little more in-depth of a discussion before adding. It's good to have established editors and contributors, but what else do they have going for them? Do their editors/writers have credentials? Do they mention any editorial policy? Have they been around long? Any sort of reputation in the industry? That sort of stuff. I'm not saying they don't, I'm just saying there should be more discussed before we list it. There's an awful lot of "Metal (insert random word)" websites out there, and many are just groups of amateur enthusiast/fans with no real authority other than "loving metal since (insert year)", and that's not enough. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Top 100 Singles chart

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Rolling Stone charts which may be of interest to the editors of this WikiProject. The Rolling Stone charts, introduced barely two years ago, have been discontinued, and the discussion is whether to keep the RS Top 100 Singles charts in chart tables. Richard3120 (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

The broader discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 20#Works by people not currently known to be notable may be of interest to this WikiProject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"First album since members left"

I know we've had this same discussion before (here and presumably other places as well) but it's come up again and I just wanna be clear about this: In the linked discussion, I stated my position that "If a band's line-up changed leading up to or immediately following the album, that's something that probably belongs in that article", and it looks like both User:Doggy54321 and User:Popcornfud agreed with me (though if I'm misreading either, do let me know, thanks.) and nobody had any direct objections to that statement. On the Illusory Walls article, however, an editor (Presumably just one, though they're an IP editor under multiple addresses over the last few days or so) has consistently removed a statement from the lead with that exact kind of info in it. The same edit has been made five times (here, here, here, here, and here) since Oct 22, and undone four of those times by different editors (the two most recent being by me, and so I'm leaving the current one in case of risking a WP:3RR violation). Despite being told multiple times to take it to the talk page, the IP editor has ignored those instructions and continued to remove the statement. So I ask: are they correct to do so in this case? I admit I haven't found much coverage to make it directly clear that that info is relevant to the album, and I don't wanna make a big mess defending trivia, but I'd rather be clear on whether or not it should be there before giving it up, especially when the only argument against it so far is from an IP editor whose other editing history is mostly unsourced and frequently leaning toward disruptive. Is this too much of an edge case/do we need to be more strictly specific about making links between albums and band members leaving? QuietHere (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, it's generally worth mentioning unless it's something like a sessions drummer only only played on the 8th of ten albums in a bands catalogue or something. An edit summary saying "not relevant" without any further explanation, is not nearly enough to warrant removing a sourced mention like this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't know anything about that particular band, but I think it's worth mentioning when there is a meaningful shift in personnel. Popcornfud (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
So the same edit has been made three more times since this discussion, and despite posting a link here in my Undos the IP user has ignored them. Is there something I can/should do about this? Report it somewhere or something? It's getting annoying, and I'd rather have it handled sooner rather than keep edit-warring with some anonymous non-respondent. QuietHere (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Sales data on forums

There are sales data of for selling albums of the week or year in the UK and other lists for different countries on forums like ukmix.org, forum.popjustice.com, forums.digitalspy.com and others. Where are they getting data from? They have more data than official published sources (articles or pdf's publications) - they have numbers from no where. Eurohunter (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't use fora for sales figures. See WP:RS. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
We don't use sources like this, it fails WP:USERG. This isn't allowed in the video game content area either. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
They aren't official sales figures... the people who post on those forums are people who worked in the music industry and had access to sales data. But all their numbers are estimates based on their personal analysis of the data they had access to... none of those sales are official or verified. No country in the world has official sales figures before 1991, because no country recorded over-the-counter sales before that date... there are only estimates based on record company shipments. Richard3120 (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: There are exact sale for top 100 etc. so they have to have access to official data and I think it's the only way otherwise there would be no point in exact numbers like 219,872 etc. I know we can't use them and it's obvious - just curious about how they obtain data. Eurohunter (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: it depends when the data is from... if it's from the last 15 or 20 years, and it's from the UK, it's probably the analysis from Music Week... I know these forums copy and paste the analysis from that magazine every week in the forums. It's official, but them you should cite the magazine,and not the forum, because they are copying the analysis illegally. Richard3120 (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: There is no such statistics in Music Week - they have different data or different summaries or periods. Most of the time I can't find data from such forums in published sources - it's like they have access to never published databases. Eurohunter (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: that's not correct, Music Week produces an analysis with sales figures every week... here is the analysis of this week's UK Singles chart [14] and the analysis of this week's UK Album chart [15]. You can't read it all, because you need a subscription, but if you have a look at the forums on UKMix, Buzzjack or Haven, they are posting the full text of this analysis so you can read it all. It even says at the beginning of the posts that it's from Music Week and the analysis is from Alan Jones. Richard3120 (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Rhapsody of Fire "Glory for Salvation" draft

I have recently created a draft for the recently released Rhapsody of Fire album, and had added sources and references to support the article. Do you think it would be possible to take a look at it to see if it is okay? HorrorLover555 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure the concept needs a separate section of its own, if it's just to contain one quote. And for people unfamiliar with the album or group, the quote saying "At this stage of the story..." without knowing what the story/album trilogy is, maybe that needs a line or two to put it into context. But this looks a lot better written and sourced than many metal albums on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not perfect, but it doesn't need to be just to be published either. I doubt this would be nominated for any sort deletion if it would be published as is. Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Junkfuel

Not sure of the appropriateness of posting here, but I'm never completely comfortable navigating our many guideline and policy pages. Anyway, I published this article, and was in the process of adding additional reliable sources when it was immediately moved to draft space--as in, immediately. This has never happened to me before, so not totally sure what to do--the editor who moved the article clearly couldn't have analyzed the sources before they moved it, and posting to their talkpage didn't seem to actually address the real issue. Advice? Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems the article has been restored. dannymusiceditor oops 17:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I saw, thanks, although I now have a "Once Bitten, Twice Shy" attitude about continuing with creating short articles... Caro7200 (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
If you're feeling edgy about a stubby article you can create it in draft space or your sandbox (you can have several sandbox pages), and when you think you're done with it, you can then publish it to mainspace. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
True, thanks, it may have been more the editor, as both Fram and Liz talked to them about their immediately moving articles to draftspace without reviewing. Caro7200 (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Caro7200: in this case it definitely seems to be a case of you and the reviewing editor having different opinions of how many sources are required to show notability. I've seen all the articles you've been creating recently and I don't see any problem with them – you always source them properly and make sure that there are several reviews from music magazines and newspapers. The reviewing editor seems to be a very fair-minded and competent person as well, so I don't think there's anything more to it than your differing views in this one instance, so don't take it personally and please carry on creating these articles... as JohnFromPinckney notes, other admins have come down on your side of the argument. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Headphone Commute

Is Headphone Commute a reliable source? Its reviews are cited in a decent number of album articles. The site itself doesn't really say what it is as far as I can see, which probably isn't a good sign. I could only find a brief mention of it in the archives (here), so I think it would be good to reach a consensus about its reliability/usability here and add it to WP:A/S. Lennart97 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

My impression: no, thank you. Apparently, it's just some guy (or guyette), albeit with a professional-level presentation. From their About page: "Remaining anonymous is important to the founder of Headphone Commute. This anonymity affords the mysterious HC the luxury of staying true to the writer's opinion and acts as a safeguard to prevent the ego from getting in the way of the one thing that counts: music" and later on that same page, "All of the content on Headphone Commute goes through a thorough fact-checking process, primarily by having the reviewed entity (artist and/or label) verify the writeup to be error-free prior to the post, or by relying on an official press release presented along with a promotional copy of the album. The interviews are posted in their raw, unedited form, with the exception of spelling corrections and/or grammar and sentence revision for the foreign language speaking interviewees." (Italics added by myself, to simulate the hair on the back of my neck standing up.) I don't think I'd use it for anything (except possibly my own entertainment).— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
JohnFromPinckney, are you insinuating that the italicized portions of the text are what make the source a problem? Because I'm confused, I would think that would be reason to be optimistic. I don't see the context of why you wouldn't use it. I'm not beyond the idea of them having multiple people in one anonymous trench coat, either. It only said that anonymity was the founder's vision, after all. However, more than anything, what bothers me is that the people/person insist on anonymity. dannymusiceditor oops 04:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry I confused you; that certainly wasn't my goal. Yes, I think it's a problem when content relies on an official press release (although it's nice they at least admit that). And while "a thorough fact-checking process" is clearly a good thing, it appears to consist of asking a record company if they like what HC is about to publish. About the trench coat: sure, it could be a well-disciplined collective of unassailable, uninfluencible, uncoercible music experts, but I really see no evidence that it's not just some individual person working on a laptop in their apartment, and I think (warning: bias!) that that's the more likely scenario. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
While writers not using their real names isn't necessarily a problem, writers using complete anonymity without any known credentials is a huge problem. And it sounds like it's just one guy publishing/repurposing press releases. If that's the case, then he's not going to be meeting our reliability standards. Sergecross73 msg me 22:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I have a follow-up question regarding this discussion. Is there something wrong with using press releases? If there is, I feel like I should've learned that in college by now as a communication student. Or perhaps that is the reason I am blind to it, or I am entirely misconstruing things. dannymusiceditor oops 17:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess the point is that by definition a press release is not going to be an independent source. Richard3120 (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Not wrong person se, but they need to be handled in accordance of WP:PRIMARY, as they're basically first party accounts. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, there seems to be a clear consensus that we should view Headphone Commute as a generally unreliable source. Shall I add it to the corresponding section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources? Lennart97 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hours (David Bowie album) release date

Hey all. So David Bowie's 1999 album Hours was the very first album released on the internet by a major artist. Currently in its infobox, the release date is listed as 4 October 1999, which was its physical release in stores. However, its internet release came earlier on 21 September. As I'm working on expanding it, I'm wondering which date should be listed in the infobox. Per Template:Infobox album, the original date should only be listed. So which date do others think should be listed in the infobox: 21 September or 4 October? Thanks! – zmbro (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the specifics, but I very much doubt this was the first one...or maybe the "major artist" part is the sticking point? I recall Billboard articles about internet releases as far back as 1994 or 1995... Feelings Are Good and Other Lies is one such (and don't tell my sister circa 1984 that Taylor wasn't a major artist ;) ). Caro7200 (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Looking further, this may be a case of ordering a physical release via the internet ... although to continue the Duran Duran connection, that band may have been the first to release a single? Maybe something that needs to be explored more, especially re: the "major artist" part. [16] Caro7200 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
To quote Template:Infobox album, "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section". If you can prove with citations that the album was initially released on 21 September 1999, then that is the only date that should be listed in the infobox. The details about that release and others should be covered either in the lead paragraph, or in a table at the bottom the page per WP:RELEASEHISTORY, or for both. There really is not much room for interpretation for the infobox release date.Mburrell (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The sources I have (albeit Bowie biographies) state Hours was the first (there's like three or four that confirm it) so I believe it to be true. It seems I will be putting 21 September as the release date in that instance but I wanted to verify with others first. Thanks! – zmbro (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Weekly charts

How weekly charts should be devided? Here Philippines and Japan has separate entry for 2017 and 2018 while 2016 only charts are mixed with 2015-2016 charts. Eurohunter (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

They should be separate tables. The fact that some articles have combined or mixed-year tables is a problem with those articles. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 07:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
This has come up before, and I really don't know the answer, because I can see the argument from both sides. The issue with separate year tables is that they have the potential to become enormous and totally take over an article, and become overwhelming. This most affects songs which chart every year at Christmas (e.g. "Fairytale of New York"), or perennial best-selling albums (e.g. Greatest Hits (Queen album)). Richard3120 (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Yikes. Those examples are rather extreme. They also shouldn't be that way. Especially the Fairytale one: I wouldn't repeat the same weekly charts over and over. The usual convention is to show the peak. That is, 1991, 2005, 2006's UK, etc., shouldn't even be there, IMO. I believe there's consensus to show each chart only once. They are separate tables to show what year the peaks occurred. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@JohnFromPinckney: so how should we approach this? Just one table with the range of years spanned from first to last chart date? The problem here now is that you don't get an idea of when the peak position happened... unless you read the text of the article, you wouldn't know that the UK no. 1 peak for "Last Christmas" happened more than 36 years after the song's original release, and well after it peaked in most other countries. "White Christmas" is an even more extreme example, where the song has charted over a range of (at present) 63 years, and peaked in different years in most counties... in the Netherlands it was in 1958, in Norway it was 1959, in the USA it was 1962, in the UK it was 1977, and in New Zealand it was 2018. Which are the separate year peak tables that you mention? Richard3120 (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. The Weekly charts at "Last Christmas" are currently presented in one table labelled "1984–2021", giving us the situation where we don't know when in that 36-year-period it hit its peaks in any of those markets. The "White Christmas" charts table is similarly opaque, for half of the 8 versions listed there (unless I counted wrong).
If, however, we had separate tables for each year, as per previous consensus, readers could see when the various peaks occurred. At "Last Christmas", for example, Italy (FIMI) should be in a table labelled "2019", because that's when it reached the peak of 5.
As examples of the way it was (once) agreed to do things, see "Hotel California" or, getting back to albums, the topic of this page, Good Girl Gone Bad. Unfortunately, it seems that many pages are no longer done this way. I can't say whether that's because consensus has consciously changed or because people didn't realize there was a "rule". I know that's what we decided back around 2010–2012, because I remember discussing it with people on my talk page. I should rummage in my archives and try to find the actual wider discussions we had (here, at WikiProject Songs, or at WikiProject Discographies). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I can't see in either of those examples any indication of peak positions occurring in different years. There are different positions in different year-end charts, but that's not the same thing. Edit: hang on, I think I know what you mean now. So you think "Last Christmas" should be in a separate table for the UK that just has "Chart (2021)" at the top and then its peak position of no. 1? Richard3120 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
We're talking about weekly charts for albums (although the same approach should be taken for singles). At "Last Christmas", under Weekly charts there should be a table labelled "1984" for any of the cited charts whose highest peak occurred in that year. There should be a table labelled "1985" for any cited chart on which the song's highest peak occurred in 1985. If there is a cited chart on which "Last Christmas" reached its highest position in 2021, it should be in a table labelled "2021".
So in response to your last question: Yes, I think, although I haven't gone through every chart to be sure UK is the only one whose highest peak was 2021. (Also, some of these refs don't point anywhere useful, which makes the whole question more problematic.)
Also, the Year-end charts at "Last Christmas" should be separate tables, at least. I'm not convinced we need five instances of Hungary's year-end position, but I'll leave that for another discussion. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with John. There should never be a need for a hyphenated year range in the "chart" column heading. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@JohnFromPinckney: @Richard3120: @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: I have forgot about this topic but finally came here to read but still don't know what would be potential conclusion? Given examples are so different. Eurohunter (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Soundthesirens

I'd like to propose adding the Australian publication Soundthesirens to the list of sources. According to their About page, they've been around since 2001, changed name to The Marshalltown, before going defunct in 2014 and returning in 2019. A long list of writers/editors/etc. can be found here. A handful I've managed to find credentials for:

Some writers in the long list had common names or seem to not have an online presence (or given up writing altogether following their time at STS/Marshalltown). Yeepsi (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no objections. It looks like they employee professional writers, and have been in the industry a long time. Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Overly long ranking lists

Looking at articles such as My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, Folklore, Invasion of Privacy, and RTJ4, they have overly long ranking lists. I suggest that we should have a rule about cut down the ranking lists at least to 20. Kinda like we only add ten reviews in the album ratings template. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree, although don't know about a number, and we wouldn't want to limit it to just the Big Daddies, like Rolling Stone, etc. But glancing through your examples, there seem to be some not-very-notable inclusions in the rankings. Caro7200 (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Caro7200: Adding a number probably not the answer but I think we should have the ranking lists limited, such as we limit the album reviews template. Plus it won't add extra weight to the article. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
OMG. I don't know where I've been (other music articles, presumably) or when these things were added, but I've never seen them before. The closest I remember coming to such rankings is an article or two which mentioned (in prose) a position on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time from 2004 and their position in the 2010 re-ranking. These things smack (reek? stink?) of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, in addition to being just plain ugly to my subjective view. How do these help an article? Do people come to an article expecting to find this info? And what are some of these? RTJ4 (linked above) lists "No Ripcord" and "No Ripcord", which apparently are not notable enough to be linked to WP articles, and the XXL "ranking" doesn't have a ranking at all. My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy has high rankings, but on things like Genius' 100 Best Albums of the 2010s or The Best Albums in Pigeons & Planes History(?!). Invasion of Privacy is just plain hideous. Do we need to know the album was rated 3rd by the Yahoo! Entertainment staff, or 42nd in some PopMatters listicle? There's no discussion of these rankings (or rankers), we just list this random "information".
Unfortunately, we live in a time where content providers (online magazines, other websites, actual print publications) are all competing for clicks and know they can publish "the X greatest Y's (of Time Period T)" and with little editorial effort produce pages of clickable ad-space. Maybe not much different from magazines of old, but much too prolific these days to place so much weight on their "findings".
I can't offer a numeric boundary (although 20, proposed above, is fine as an upper limit), but I find these examples extreme. I think we need, at least, to exercize editorial judgment and prune lists like these, case-by-case, based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I know, that means lots of somewhat tedious or contentious discussions. I just can't believe somebody comes to Invasion of Privacy to find how it was ranked by San Diego CityBeat. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed. And sometimes it's contextual too; it may be noteworthy to note that an up and coming band ranks 97th on the album of the year charts over at Vice. But it's hardly noteworthy for a Taylor Swift blockbuster album. But unfortunately, most editors lack that sort of insight and merely say "well someone added it somewhere else so it needs to be added here too". So it's hard to come up with an overall remedy. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Contextuality: good point. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I think, can the lot. Those examples at My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, Invasion of Privacy (with Awards and nominations still to come there!) and RTJ4 are a joke – an embarrassment. It's as if we're indulging every website's clickbait approach and turning them into notable information, but is it? These rankings are self-sourced; they/the publishers are saying "this is important", and because it's a ranking or a score, editors seem to lap it up. It's reflective of a shallow approach to article writing, in my opinion. (I've said it before: this music project is turning the encyclopedia into trash, because editors are unable to discern between notable information and trash detail for the sake of it.)
It's also as if we've decided to have a new type of charts – critics charts – in addition to sales charts, and in addition to reviews and reviewer ratings in a critical reception. There's a good reason for having sales charts and a detailed critical reception: both areas have a long history in measuring aspects of a song or album's success and are recognised as such by no end of secondary sources. But does this mass annual rankings thing, particularly, have that sort of recognition?
Serge makes a good point about contextually – that it would be significant for an unknown artist to land in a few annual best-album rankings but hardly so for a really established act. But we'd need a secondary source to tell us it's significant, of course. JG66 (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Could I just add a related topic here... the inclusion of mid-year or "so far this year" lists, which to me is taking "best of" lists to even more extreme levels. See the accolades for Set My Heart on Fire Immediately, for example. The next logical step from six-monthly "best of" lists is "best of the month"... and before I'm accused of exaggerating, both NME and Q in the UK used to publish their best albums of the last month in their printed versions, so it's entirely possible for an editor to dig up old copies of the magazines and say "Q rated the album as one of the ten best releases in March 2015". Richard3120 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
*gag* *choke* *hurl* No fewer than three items in that table are articles titled "So Far". What utter rubbish. Maybe we need an article like Best clickbait article (so far) or Clickbait of the month? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree that some of these tables are getting out of hand. I vow that we at the very least remove all ones that are "so far...". We can keep them when they're first published as it wouldn't be another six months until formal "best-of" lists are written, and when those are published we remove all "so far..." ones. That way it's safe to say all of those "so far" ones are outdated. Imo that would be a good start. – zmbro (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@Zmbro: I agreed, the "so far" lists are especially unnecessary. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Popcornfud, Binksternet, Kyle Peake, Piotr Jr., and Ronherry: in this discussion if they already know. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven't formed a clear-cut opinion over this, but I do want to mention that when Folklore was becoming ready for GA, the GA reviewer raised this very same argument as well. Upon his suggestion, I removed dozens of publications nobody generally knows, leaving only the prominent ones on the list. Ronherry (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
It is mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice that accolades from publications are suitable in the body of articles, so I am in favour of keeping these. However, they should only be from reliable sources (though No Ripcord is reliable despite the lack of its own page) and unranked ones could do with removal in cases where most are ordered, also maybe there should be a cutoff of how high the rankings need to be for articles with tons like MBDTF? --K. Peake 06:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: As Zmbro pointed out earlier, the "so far" lists are outdated and unnecessary, so I suggest we should remove those first. I also think the unranked lists are not necessary either. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh I forgot to comment on those lists sorry, yeah I believe those are unnecessary and so are unranked ones, unless these are literally the only rankings I believe they do not warrant inclusion. --K. Peake 07:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Several reliable and very well known music publications have never ranked their year-end albums in any sort of order... Q never did it, and I don't think Rolling Stone does either... they simply had a "top 50 best albums". So are you saying these should be removed? Richard3120 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm with Richard these should be kept. I mean look at 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. I think for the time being it's best to focus on the so far... lists and others from publications that a) aren't reliable or b) aren't notable. – zmbro (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Totally agree – these are the most obvious areas to get rid of first, and I don't think anyone can make a good case for keeping them. Richard3120 (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Twenty seems excessive to me; ten would focus the article on the most important aspects. The excessive entries run into problems of indiscriminate information. If we standardize a template of ten, in the same manner as album review ratings, editors would more easily adapt. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for saying that, I was going to suggest something of the same idea. Whether it be 5, 10, whatever, there is some value in listing some highlights, if it's done right. Parity with the review boxes would at least help in enforcement I think, but whatever number we can all agree on. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Ten is a better number than 20 for me, too. And I do like the prosey examples linked to by others here. That approach would work really well, IMO. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 07:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
At Folklore, the list runs smack into WP:NOHIDE by hiding a large table at page load. NOHIDE says if you're hiding a big list, you should question whether the list should exist at all. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, I noticed that. I think Dan56/Isento/Piotr Jr. did it well at Maxinquaye – the second paragraph of the "legacy" section mentions the year-end lists that the album topped, and the last paragraph talks about the established "best albums ever" lists that it has appeared in. Richard3120 (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I started following his lead from Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) when writing Bowie's articles (see Station to Station and Low). I think it's much better to have things in prose rather than one gigantic table no one really cares about. – zmbro (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I think Eddy's Accidental Evolution is great and hilarious, but so what that Aftermath "features" in it? What does that convey to a reader? I'm not a fan of 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die, but it's often just thrown into an article without any of the prose ... even if an album entry includes an entire page of prose ... I don't mean any of this sarcastically, although I know these comments often read that way. Caro7200 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Binksternet: I can go for only ten publications on the table, it's better then what I'm suggesting. Articles such as Folklore and Melodrama was the reason why I start this discussion in the first place. They have these overlong list of year-end or decade-end rankings, which is overkill and I don't know why nobody complain about this issue. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 26:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Just echoing what several others have said, really, but I don't like tables of list rankings, as I feel it visually breaks the flow of the article, and then because in articles like those mentioned they're huge in their attempt for completeness. I'm all for the mention of lists if its in prose and that's how I go about it personally, although I tend to work on articles for albums with less of this sort of canonising. 'So Far' lists I think are maybe interesting if the relevant albums then don't go onto appear in the year-end ones.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree that Piotr Jr handled it well at Aftermath – Low looks pretty good too, from a cursory glance. This was something I meant to mention: imagine what pages for "classic" albums from the 1960s and '70s would look like if every single best-album list gets mentioned. I've worked on Beatles articles like Revolver and Sgt Pepper, where dozens of rankings get ignored because there's simply no room for them. (And I'm talking about best album of all time rankings ...) Also, in the sections at Revolver and Pepper, we cite secondary sources in most instances, as these tell us that a particular ranking is significant (rather than the publication telling us). JG66 (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
You mean the best album of all time rankings so far. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 07:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Aftermath is a pretty good example of rankings expressed in prose, but if we establish 10 as the maximum, it will need a very slight trimming. Binksternet (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Finally, thank you for bringing up this issue. I fully support cutting the list to either 10 or 20 publications. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you all think the accolades list at Blackstar (album) needs to be trimmed down? I haven't looked at it in a while and it seems to match this convo as well. – zmbro (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It's seems that everybody have agreed that the table should be cut down to ten publications, should this rule be added at WP:ALBUMSTYLE? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@JG66: Should this change be added in WP:ALBUMSTYLE? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Guess so, once the RfC is formally closed. JG66 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Can you close the RfC? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC

Album-related articles like Norman Fucking Rockwell!, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, Folklore, Damn, RTJ4, and Melodrama, others in general have these multiple year-end or decade-end lists. Should we cut down these tables to only ten publications, in the same manner as the album ratings template? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Define "newer." The Village Voice started "ranking" albums almost 50 years ago ... but I support the larger point. Caro7200 (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I don't necessarily think the amount of rankings should be cut down to 10, rather than that there should be a cut off point based upon how high they are. --K. Peake 19:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree they should be cut down, but I don't support the idea of limiting it to just 10 lists overall, whether that's in table or prose form. Some albums have a much wider reach than others because of the originating artist and get included on more lists as such, and I think it would be unfair to albums that don't receive the same to be limited to only 10 accolades because someone got trigger happy on a TSwift article. Like if a Spanish or French album really resonated and got included on 15 diff but really notable lists, we'd be allowed to only talk about 10 of those, and that could give the impression foreign language albums have less impact than English ones (and yes ik WP is under no obligation to list every accolade or list placement received). I think 20 would be a better number. It limits the excessive listing but still gives room. Or allow the year-end lists for a time and then replace them w decade-end lists when those come out, and just edit the prose to mention that the album made it on several year-end lists subsequent to its release. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Carlobunnie: I think ten is a necessary number, we only add ten reviews in the album ratings template, why not the tables? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:C'mon, C'mon#Requested move 26 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:C'mon, C'mon#Requested move 26 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Tell All Your Friends

Greetings colleagues, I hope you all had a wonderful holiday. I'm here to tell all my friends (ba dum tss) about an open Featured Article Candidacy for this article. It can be found here. I appreciate all comments and concerns! dannymusiceditor oops 20:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

More opinions needed at Red Hot Chili Peppers

About how much coverage (so to speak) to give their nude performances. See the talk page at the article. Popcornfud (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Legacy Collection

I am confused about the numbering scheme that Columbia Records used on this series of box sets. Either I'm missing a ton of entries in the series or they just used a zillion different catalog numbers? I would have expected a more ordered sequence. Thoughts? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Genres sourced from YouTube

I have a few problems with This Is Not the End (Manafest album). The most recent is a fan who has insisted on adding two genres to the infobox because the artist stated them in the infobox. I would usually revert, but the editor refused to accept RS or WP:GWAR and kept edit warring to get them in. The final source is the problem.

As I looked over the sources to see if there were any reviews to rely on, I found that most of it is sourced to self-published YouTube videos or Apple Music links that show little more than the music exists, and one press release. Only two secondary source exists: one is a blog and Indie Vision Music has no author. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

From what I can see, the notability of the entire article should be at question. The only WP:RSMUSIC source that I can find covering it is Jesus Freak Hideout which wouldn't be enough for me to make an article for it. Not sure what the actual question is meant to be here, but my judgment is this article is pure WP:FANCRUFT and need not be kept (Unless more sources can be found that I missed, of course). QuietHere (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Unsourced genre concerns are small beans when the article itself ought to be canned. Tkbrett (✉) 14:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Is Not the End (Manafest album). Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tell All Your Friends/archive1

Bumping this discussion because the original one got buried in about four hours. This article doesn't have many involved WikiProjects, so I am once again asking for support, or at least reviews, of the nomination. I was notified that it may be archived soon due to lack of participation. dannymusiceditor oops 23:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Singles from albums

  • Singles released 10 years earlier and added as bonus tracks to new album - should they be classified in album infobox as singles? Same question if the name of new album should be added as album in singles section to discrograhy? It's hard to say because there are small differences not credited and 10 years is a long time so it just looks like there is no connection between them.
  • The other case would be if new hit single is added as track to old album while new album is ahead. I would say the second album would be the "main" one but technically it was released on earlier album... Eurohunter (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think it is based on how is the single "really" promoting certain album so I think everyone can notice what single is promotiong which album even if they are released before or after album release and it doesn't matter if they were released on other albums before or after. Eurohunter (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles covers several of the cases you mention here, with the general guidance that the infobox should only include singles "that were released as singles during the marketing and promotion of the album." A helpful example is the page for Jeff Buckley's album Grace. A few months ago, I removed two singles from its infobox because they were released far after the original release and independent of its original marketing campaign. One of those, "Forget Her", was actually released to help promote the tenth anniversary version of the album – the "Legacy Edition" – which had its own infobox further down in the page. It therefore made more sense to include the single release of "Forget Her" within the Legacy Edition's infobox, rather than the infobox at the top of the album's page. In more ambiguous cases, it's best to discuss it at the album's talk page. Tkbrett (✉) 20:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I think "The Things That Dreams Are Made Of" from the Human League's Dare would also apply to this conversation too. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Side note: I've noticed a lot of single release dates being added to infoboxes with Hung Medien chart links as sources. Why should Dutch, Australian, etc. charts have details about singles released in the US? It looks like info from its forum pages or discogs, 45cat, and secondhandsongs. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

bestsellingalbums.org

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is unanimous agreement that bestsellingalbums.org should be added to WP:NOTRSMUSIC. --Muhandes (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Any thoughts about bestsellingalbums.org? To me it seems like WP:NOTRSMUSIC candidate with unclear sources and unknown editorial oversight. It might actually be mirroring some of Wikipedia's lists. --Muhandes (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the first I've ever heard of this site, and I can see that it's used nowhere in the entirety of ENWP, so I'm not sure it's anything to worry about at the moment. As for whether it's reliable, I could be wrong but it certainly doesn't look like it. As you mentioned there's no About page or any sort of clarity about the sites operations, and I can't find any links on the site that don't just redirect to other pages on the site so the source of its information seems to be totally unknown. Unless someone else can dig up those things to show otherwise, I think it's best to just ignore this page altogether. I don't see anything wrong with making an entry just in case, but as I said I don't see anyone trying to use it already so I'm not too worried about it. QuietHere (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@QuietHere: I confess that before starting this conversation I removed this website from articles which used it (e.g. here), which is why you don't see it. This was also proposed as a source in this discussion, which is what prompted my attention. If there is consensus that this website is not reliable, I would prefer to list it. --Muhandes (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: In that case, listing it seems like the right idea, and I think you were fine to remove it. QuietHere (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Anyone else have an opinion about this one? More opinions appreciated. --Muhandes (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's likely unreliable. I think it's best to stick with official figures - Billboard (magazine), Official Charts, RIAA, ARIA, etc etc. Their info is likely coming from there anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Too little is known about the site (sources, oversight, copyvios?, etc.) to determine whether it is reliable. I checked a couple of artists I am familiar with and question how it came up with some of the stats. I'd say it's a good candidate for the list. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
This seems rater unanimous, so I'm going to WP:IAR and close and archive this discussion. We can always discuss it again if the situation changes. --Muhandes (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2022 (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.

Mixtape/studio album

Bringing here a query regarding Caprisongs, with a courtesy tag for Pjesnik21.

So this new release from FKA twigs is promoted as a "mixtape" for stylistic reasons: genre diverse, guest features, continuous play. But... it's a studio album, right? New studio recordings, all performed by the lead artist, original material, 50 minutes length - I can't think of a single criteria for studio album it doesn't fulfil. Not to mention that a lot of the background material on its creation, as sourced in the article, and at least one review, describe it directly as an album.

Seems to me that it's far clearer to readers to categorise this release as Twigs' third studio album - because it is - without letting the mixtape branding distort the core encyclopedic information, ie. the infobox. Is there any precedent around this? U-Mos (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I think when we've discussed this in the past, the only thing that was really agreed upon was to use the label that reliable sources most commonly use. Much like the common "is it a single or just a promotional song" question, it's hard to define because the definitions and usage has kind of blurred together in recent years. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
With 48 minutes of largely new studio material, I think this FKA Twigs release is a studio album. For our purposes here, it might be necessary to have a policy discussion in which we figure out why musicians are calling their studio releases "mixtapes" and whether that is a technical or stylistic distinction. I think these musicians are using the term "mixtape" simply because it sounds trendy, which is okay for them but makes things unnecessarily confusing here, especially at the Album Infobox. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_64&oldid=1072484678"