Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 67

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70

Template:Music ratings

Page watchers may be interested in Template talk:Music ratings#Merged. Izno (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Jagger/Richards or separate?

Random thought that just occurred to me. I was looking at ReWiggled's track list and noticed that their cover of "She's a Rainbow" is credited as being written by M. Jagger and K. Richards. All well and good. But then it hit me that when I made the track list for Draft:Stoned Cold Country, I wrote the credit as "All tracks are written by Jagger/Richards", with that link going to a page about the writing partnership between the two. A similar page also exists at Lennon–McCartney for those Beatley fellows, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are even more than that (such as my favorite songwriting duo Kirk/Spock). So now I'm looking at these and wondering if it would be correct to write it the way I did in my draft, or should I link them separately like it's done on ReWiggled and presumably most other pages. Is there something in the MoS that I've forgotten about/haven't seen which answers this? Should there be a strict preference, or is either fine? QuietHere (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Another thing worth mentioning is that Keith Richards was known as Keith Richard (no s) from 1963–1978, so if you look at any LP or 7" from that period, the songs are credited as "Jagger, Richard". I made this clear when writing the GA for "Mother's Little Helper" and added a note at Aftermath, but plenty of other articles just credit songs to "Jagger–Richards" without mentioning the name change, like the FA for "Paint It Black". I think it makes more sense to provide the original credit and not the name change; MOS:PLACE has a similar standard of not naming things anachronistically. Tkbrett (✉) 15:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Album quality assessments task

Ten years ago I began the task of assessing album articles for quality (from stub-class to B-class). At the time there were over 40,000 articles that required assessments. Add in the thousands of new articles created during that ten-year time frame, and we're probably looking at over 50,000 album articles that needed to be assessed for this Project. Well, with thanks to the work of countless others who have come and gone (in particular, Rfl0216 and Richard3120), that number is now under 1,000. With a little more help, this can be completed in a couple more weeks (although it will never be truly done) just by reviewing what remains in the unassessed album articles category. It may be a thankless task, but I've enjoyed doing this because it has exposed me to so much I wouldn't have been aware of otherwise (the albums, the music, the musicians). Of course, it also makes me aware of all the hard work so many of you are doing to add to this encyclopedia. It's been a pleasure reading and learning from your contributions. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Your work in categorizing and assessing is very much appreciated, Star. I tend to not be the first person to rate articles that I created, but I realize that there is no rule against this. Do you think it would be better if I started rating articles that I create or leave that to someone else? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I really appreciate the work of you three, especially when I was starting multiple album articles a week. I never messed with the talk pages, as I knew that another set of eyes would soon be reviewing things and correcting style errors, typos, etc. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)--I agree with Justin, I tended to shy away from the talk pages for those reasons as well. Caro7200 (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
That's entirely up to you.. Tagging the talk page with the Project banner would be enough for me. Keep up the great work, both of you. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I absolutely second this, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars... I've found out about so many artists from so many other genres that I never knew about during my article tagging, even if it takes a lot of time. And Caro7200. I'm always happy to see when new articles have been created by you, because I know they will be properly researched and sourced, and well written... very little copyediting to do! Richard3120 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Stone rating system changes (and issue)

On 18 August 2022, Rolling Stone posted an article online entitled "Welcome to the New Rolling Stone"[1] wherein it was announced that the magazine would no longer be using star ratings in their reviews for new music. The article states:

"No more starred reviews for new music. If you’re into pop culture in 2022, you’re too sophisticated to let some arbitrary number guide your tastes. So we’ll tell you right away when a new single is an instant classic or an album is an absolute must-hear. After that, our critics will help you make up your own damn mind."

Should this be clarified in the "Rolling Stone" entry in Reliable Sources, which states that they use a 5-star rating system?

Additionally, I have located at least one album review[2] on their website (published in 2016 when the 5-star rating system was still in use) which appears to use a 4-star system, with the album in question receiving 3.5 out of 4 stars. The Wiki page for the album[3] states that the album was given 3.5 out of 5 stars, with the citation containing a dead link. How should this album rating be dealt with (as well as any other reviews that may be found which use a 4-star system)? Should it be assumed that this was not a mistake, and thus the rating should be reported in a 4-star format? Should the rating be discounted entirely, as it does not appear to conform to the magazine's (previously) established system? Or something different from either of those options? Colebateman97 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I at least fixed the first issue on reliable sources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I've made a note to check for the print version of the Rolling Stone Jim James review when I'm in the British Library in a few weeks' time, and hopefully that will tell us whether it's an error on the website or not. At least one album, Little Earthquakes, has a different rating online than it does in the magazine (I've checked twice, to make sure I wasn't making a mistake).
Rolling Stone started using five-star ratings in early 1981 but discontinued them in mid-1985, before restarting them at the beginning of 1988 – I have the exact dates somewhere in my notebook. These dates could probably be added to the clarification that Colebateman97 notes above. Richard3120 (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I tried looking in the British Library, but they only have Rolling Stone up to 2014. Richard3120 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I was already aware of the removal of ratings (and addition of the occasional "must-hear" and "instant classic" badge labels), but I only just learned about the 4-star rating change. It is not uniform and across-the-board, but it seems to have altered a plethora of reviews. I was alerted when an editor "updated" a rating to reflect the 4-star system. Should we really be updating every changed score? Or should we link to an archive page? Οἶδα (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
@Colebateman97: @Richard3120: I just realized that the rating system has not changed. The website now just shows the ratings as individual stars. For example, an album that was given a 3 stars out of 5 rating is now represented as and no longer . But the rating system is still out of 5 stars. A few other publications do this; The Austin Chronicle for example. This is mostly fine but unfortunately, as I mentioned above, some users will think the rating system has changed and will incorrectly "update" articles as such. Οἶδα (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

New template

I have recently created {{Track listing total length}}, which may be helpful in templates such as {{Track listing}}. Let me know if there's any questions or concerns. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to point out that because individual track times are rounded up or down to the neatest second, the actual overall length may be one or two seconds out from the calculated length, and may have to be manually adjusted anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk.

My apologies for not sorting this list down; please feel free to remove those that aren't actually applicable to this WP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?)
  2. Angel of Death (Slayer song)
  3. Audioslave
  4. Be Here Now (album)
  5. Blood Sugar Sex Magik
  6. Body Count (album)
  7. By the Way
  8. Christ Illusion
  9. Concerto delle donne
  10. Dookie
  11. Doolittle (album)
  12. Dream Days at the Hotel Existence
  13. Dungeons & Dragons (album)
  14. Eyes of the Insane
  15. Fightin' Texas Aggie Band
  16. Freak Out!
  17. Fuck the Millennium
  18. God Hates Us All
  19. Godsmack
  20. Hey Baby (No Doubt song)
  21. Hey Jude
  22. Jihad (song)
  23. Joey Santiago
  24. Leo Ornstein
  25. Love. Angel. Music. Baby.
  26. Loveless (album)
  27. Mariah Carey
  28. Nick Drake
  29. One Hot Minute
  30. Pearl Jam
  31. Pinkerton (album)
  32. Powderfinger
  33. Reign in Blood
  34. Rock Steady (album)
  35. Sex Pistols
  36. Sky Blue Sky
  37. Smells Like Teen Spirit
  38. Sonatas and Interludes
  39. South of Heaven
  40. Stereolab
  41. Still Reigning
  42. Supernature (Goldfrapp album)
  43. Surfer Rosa
  44. Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)
  45. The Long and Winding Road
  46. The Smashing Pumpkins
  47. The World Is Not Enough (song)
  48. Thespis (opera)
  49. Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song)
  50. Tool (band)
  51. Tōru Takemitsu
  52. Uncle Tupelo
  53. What You Waiting For?
  54. Wilco
Struck out songs and bands/musicians from the above list. Richard3120 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Album/EP/mixtape?

After MicahParsons14's latest edits to Pixel Bath and Chaos Now, I realized that there's an open question regarding those changes. I have found several sources that call Bad Sports Jean Dawson's debut album ([1][2][3]) as well as an interview where Dawson himself calls it his "first album". On the other hand, here's a few which call that project his debut EP and two that call it a mixtape ([4][5]). There's even a direct contradiction between his AllMusic bio ("his 2019 EP Bad Sports") and their review of Pixel Bath ("his 2019 debut mixtape, Bad Sports"). And this collection is far from exhaustive. From this, it seems about equally split between the three options, and I don't know which is right. QuietHere (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Notability of iTunes Originals and exclusives

As a member of WikiProject Apple Inc., I've noticed quite a few iTunes Originals articles (see Category:iTunes Originals) that are of dubious notability. Quite a few of them have been nominated at AfD with no consensus closes, but it may be worth considering them as a group (since they seem to have roughly equal notability) and deciding whether to merge them into the band's respective articles, or into iTunes Originals, or whatever you think should be done. Right now, I'm at a loss as to how much potential for extension these stubs have. DFlhb (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed reliable sources for Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources

I have seen reviews mentioned at reliable review aggregators for the following sources (with example reviews) and would like to solicit if others think they should be added to this listing:

I am not terribly familiar with them, but I have seen some of them repeatedly (Far Out, Our Culture, Spectrum Culture) while writing album articles recently. Additionally, it seems that Northern Transmissions is blocklisted as a URI (!) locally, but not on the global list. This dates back to 2012 (!) as was due to some individual IPs spamming it, but the site itself seems safe and does not have obvious malware or spam. To see an example: https:// northerntransmissions [period] com/yo-la-tengo-this-stupid-world/. Do we think this could be added to our sources? If so, I will ask for it to be unblocked. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Most if these I'm not familiar with, and would have to look into before I could comment. I could have sworn than have discussed Far Out before though, and thought it was usable. Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I corralled credentials of writers from Treblezine and XS Noize sometime ago, but never got round to making threads here. MusicforthePeople (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Treblezine writer credentials
XS Noize writer credentials
In my experience with most of these (not sure if I'm familiar with Why Now, only slightly more sure with Tinnitist, what I'm saying applies to the rest), they all seem generally reliable to me. I have only ever noticed one writer for Our Culture, the very same Konstantinos Pappis who wrote the review you linked, but I haven't bothered to check if there are more than just him so that might be nothing; worth looking into though. And I'm glad it got mentioned above because this gives me an opportunity to bring back my previous attempt at clearing Northern Transmission's seemingly good name which started here. I did a bit of digging at the time and found what look like some solid credentials for a handful of writers there. QuietHere (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks all for the feedback so far and I'll state for context that my assumption is that if a source is aggregated by Album of the Year, AnyDecentMusic?, or Metacritic, it is almost certainly reliable and if it's selected by at least two, it certainly is. So without doing the due diligence that (e.g.) MusicforthePoeple has done, this is my rule of thumb. I appreciate others doing the legwork. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Album of the Year's critics ratings are added by users. I don't know how, if at all, they curate that, but I don't think it's as safe a guarantee as MC or ADM which I believe are staff curated. That said, the majority of sources that get listed on AOTY seem to be reliable to me, and many are confirmed so, so it might be a non-issue for the most part. Just worth keeping in mind. QuietHere (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Also worth noting that AOTY's official critics' year-end lists collection includes commercial sites such as Rough Trade, Piccadilly Records, and Norman Records, neither of which appear to be reliable sources given the potential conflict of interest when they're selling the albums they list. In that case I'd say it's likely not a 100% safety rate with AOTY. QuietHere (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
It's not obvious to me that this is a conflict of interest, as telling someone to buy one of the hundreds of albums that you sell just means that person may not buy a different album you sell because he bought that one. That said, I'm not suggesting that anything listed at Album of the Year should be assumed to be reliable and we should change our criteria, just that this is how I generally think of it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far. There's definitely a bunch of websites that MC aggregates that aren't classified as reliable by Wikipedia standards at the video game Wikiproject, for example Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yor, the Hunter from the Future (soundtrack)

Yor, the Hunter from the Future (soundtrack) has been around for along time and it seems to have been unsourced since created. If you Google the title, you'll get some hits; however, nothing seems to resemble any of the criteria specified in WP:NALBUM. The article about the film Yor, the Hunter from the Future is better developed and it seems that content found in the soundtrack album could be merged into the film's article, but it would still be unsourced so to speak. The album cover would need to go per WP:FILMSCORE and WP:NFC#cite_note-3, but maybe some of the text content could be incorporated into a new "Soundtrack" section added to the article about the film. Does any think such a thing would be acceptable or worth the effort, or does this soundtrack article need to go to AfD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I suspect the result of an AfD on that article would just suggest the merger anyway. I at least know that my instinct would be to vote for a merger. May as well be bold and do it yourself. I don't see anything wrong with it being in there. Worth mentioning that the music from the film was nominated for two Golden Raspberry Awards in 1984, something the soundtrack article doesn't bring up. QuietHere (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Per the above, I've gone ahead a boldly merged the stand-alone article into Yor, the Hunter from the Future#Soundtrack. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Is The Anthem of the Outcast by BOTDF an EP or mini-LP?

The Anthem of the Outcast is over 35 minutes long, with nine songs. isn't this effectively be a mini-LP? Kart2401real (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That depends first and foremost on how reliable sources refer to it. Given there are zero on the page (The AllMusic link doesn't verify any of the claims it's tagged on), you (or some other editor) are gonna have to find some more for the article to even stay on the site before that question can be asked. QuietHere (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Seconded. Go by what reliable sources most commonly use. Sergecross73 msg me 23:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed change to Template:WikiProject Albums

There is consensus to remove the Importance scale for WikiProject Albums. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 08:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

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

The {{WPALBUM}} template includes assessment parameters for both quality and importance. Since literally 99% of album-related articles will be low importance and it's hard to really even think of which album articles are more "important" than others (except maybe the article album itself), I think removing it would be wise and reduce overhead. Thoughts on this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Massively support this. There's no criteria for importance, or if there is its not well known. It's also highly subjective. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the importance scale makes it clear enough what the requirements are for that parameter. I don't think it's self-defeating that the majority of album-related articles, I think that's just a feature. QuietHere (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps but its burdensome admin - the value of time versus payoff isn't worth it IMO >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I mean, if 99% of albums are just gonna be rated low then I don't suspect it's that intense a burden. Unless there's a history of it causing trouble you can point to then I don't see the issue. QuietHere (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to throw in an addendum to my comments here just to say that I'm really not bothered either way about keeping the parameter. I'm not entirely clear on what it does that isn't fairly self-explanatory by any given subject. I just don't see it as harmful in the way koavf seems to suggest. If it is kept, however, I do think the scale could use some adjustment. The complete lack of mention of albums which have won/been nominated for major awards seems like a glaring omission to me. QuietHere (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I actually think the criteria are pretty arbitrary and muddled. I really don't think that Communique is a "medium-importance" album article. If anything, I could see how a handful of articles about what albums are (e.g. concept album or record producer) are fundamental for understanding as well as a few of the most well-known, best selling, and critically-acclaimed albums themselves, but the gradation seems unnecessary. For that matter, the criteria state that top-priority articles are good candidates for bringing to featured status, but of course, in practice, fairly "unimportant" albums like Lions (album) and Illinois (album) are featured, whereas double album is C-class and I think that most of us editing album articles will just continue to edit on albums that interest us. To take recent things I've done, I made Winter Sequence recently because it was an interesting thing I learned about and we had nothing here and I made Angel in the Dark and Llegó Navidad because they were gaps in important artists' discographies here, but I don't know that any of these are particularly "important". For that matter, releases by particularly popular artists like Nicki Minaj will get some extensive editing and thorough articles, but (to use another example of an article I made), is Kamikaze (Eminem album) really even "mid-level" important? I don't think so. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
See, under the current criteria, I would say that Communiqué very much is a mid-importance album... how else would you distinguish between a high-charting album in several counties by an internationally-famous band, and a semi-obscure non-charting indie release? But I guess that's the point you are making - it's so subjective, almost no album would ever be classified as mid-importance, and therefore importance ratings become worthless if everything is either "high" or "low". It's also dependent on the country you view it from - for example, The Lexicon of Love almost universally features in greatest ever album lists in the UK, but outside that country, few editors will be aware of it.
For what it's worth, I've always considered the albums in the major "all time" lists (RS 500 Albums, NME 500 Albums, 1001 Albums You Must Hear), plus some obvious international best-sellers (Coldplay, Rihanna, Adele), as top/high importance... because of repetition I estimate this gives around 1200 to 1500 albums at these levels. Then high-charting in multiple countries would be mid-level, and the rest would be low-importance. But I really don't mind if the consensus is to do away with the importance levels altogether... WikiProject Songs has managed fine for several years without complaints. Richard3120 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have been in this project for more than 10 years, and have observed that the Assessment stats table has pretty much always indicated that there are tens of thousands of album articles in which the current Importance rating is ???. I like to nibble away at those regularly by adding my own Importance assessment (I did ten just today), and I suspect that our esteemed colleague Richard3120 does the same. But with tens of thousands of needed actions and just a few people interested in chipping away at them, it seems like a losing numerical battle. So perhaps the "Importance" of an album is not really so "important" to Wikipedia's more casual editors and readers. Personally, I think it's a useful parameter, maybe with a few inconsistencies in how it is defined, but I am probably an outlier. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
To sum up: I would have no dispute with an administrative action to remove the "Importance" parameter if Justin/Koavf wants to move in that direction. It's a nice thing to have but creates an insurmountable workload, and that energy is better used elsewhere. I honestly don't think too many people would miss it, and those who do would soon get over it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: I will always support WikiProjects removing the importance status, and more WikiProjects have started to remove it altogether. It works for small WPs (Beyoncé for example has no more than 400 of them and all of them are organized according to the project's needs. The importance scale might be subjective even there, but it is based on how popular the subject is in relation to the singer). Our sister project Songs, for example, has not had an importance scale and the project works well. LGBT simply reworked the top priority to Core topics. The given importance scale parameters were created like 15 years ago when the project required some sort of organization and it no longer works for the current needs of Wikipedia and its readers. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I also have no problem with the removal of or ending the importance rating. I guess someone would have to come up with a rationale on what value it adds to the project to keep it in order to change my mind. The class ratings, albeit somewhat just as subjective in their assessments, at least give editors options of what articles they might to work on or provide examples of what they have to shoot towards in achieving a certain level of quality. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support the removal of the Importance parameter from the {{WikiProject Albums}} template. I don't think it's adding much value at this point. Articles about very well-known or influential albums tend to be in pretty good shape anyway. And as others have said, 99% of the assessed articles are tagged as low importance, which is not very helpful. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I support the removal of importance rankings as well. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be remove. I'll set a reminder on my calendar for two weeks from now and if nothing has changed, I'll remove it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. "P.S." On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment page there's a table of album articles by quality and importance. If I'm doing the math right, almost 95% of album articles are rated as low importance -- including 46 Featured articles and 807 Good articles. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the reason why almost all albums are rated as low-importance is because without any clear guidance as to what makes an album high- or mid-importance, most editors default to low to avoid any accusations of favoritism. Richard3120 (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I have gotten into a few edit hubbubs (not quite edit wars) on Talk pages with people who insisted that their personal favorite album was "Top" or "High" importance, missing the point that the album needs to influence someone other than themselves. But that also indicates the poor definitions as noted by RIchard3120 above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support per WP:Systemic bias. An album's importance can be varies country-by-country. An album that's considered essential in the UK may not necessary be so in the US. Erick (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

One last friendly note that I intend on removing this soon, so if I've misread consensus or there is some compelling reason to keep it, let me know ASAP. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Done. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 12 February 2023 (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.

Assessment Table

Just wanted to point out that after the recent decision to remove the Importance parameter for album articles (which I supported), the assessment table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment has gone haywire. That table technically doesn't even need to be two-dimensional anymore, and it could be substantially redesigned. I was wondering if this has been forgotten or if automated processes will eventually straighten it out. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It was not forgotten. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion: Why Pink Floyd...?

This has been nominated for a few days but hasn't attracted much commentary yet. Opinions wanted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Pink Floyd...? (2nd nomination) Popcornfud (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Album vs EP

If more secondary sources say a release is an album as opposed to an EP, do we go with what the majority label it as? Or if the artist/label's store has it labelled as an EP (as well as some a minority of secondary sources), should we give that designation priority? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Usually, we go by what reliable sources most commonly say. I know there's some old-school hard definitions on where the line is drawn (x number of tracks or minutes or whatever), but much like the definition of a "single", definitions have changed in the modern age, so it's usually just best to go by the common Wikipedia mantra of WP:V and WP:RS instead. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Majority rules, but you could always add a "Sometimes designated as an EP" footnote. QuietHere (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I would avoid footnotes. See WP:COMMONNAME, I'd follow the same principles even though we're not talking about the name of the release. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with the other arguments. If the artist states on their own website that it is an EP or an album, that is what I would call it. I am not including the record labels, only the artist as a primary source. Only if the artist has not defined it would I then go to the reviews by independent sources and poll for a consensus. Mburrell (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
The specific case I'm referring to, the artist Jimin has no official website himself. His label's website has a section for his solo releases, which refers to the record by name while the US BTS store calls it an EP in the description of the record's product listing only. All info. released by the label, excluding the store listing, refers to the record as the singer's "debut solo album" which is why the majority of rel second. sources (Korean (Newsen, The Korea Herald, Yonhap etc.), English (BB], RS, NME, Variety, Consequence, Nylon, LOBF etc.), and otherwise) also use "album". A handful of sources (and I'm being generous here) say "EP" in their pieces (mainly this piece from Grammy.com and no one else). Even the main Weverse Shop website/app (the label's commercial platform for all their artists releases) uses "album" in its notices about the record's release (Global notice, US notice) and on product listings (WVS Global, WVS USA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlobunnie (talk • contribs) 07:39, February 25, 2023 (UTC)
In the case of Korean music, I imagine the confusion comes from what they call a mini-album. Minis are usually EP-sized and so are often considered equivalent to EPs in Western media despite not being marketed as such at home. It can be confusing. Check for Korean coverage of the album (WP:KO/RS has a long list of those) to see how they refer to it. I don't know if we have a consistent rule for this yet, but if you ask me I would go with what the Koreans are saying in these instances. QuietHere (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
There is no confusion is stemming from what Korean sources are saying, as I mentioned above that they also call it an "album". I have not seen any Korean articles so far (including recent ones up to today) use "mini-album", which is what they usually specify in their articles for EP and phys single releases. Everyone has been using the "album" designation because that is the designation the label has been using since news of Jimin's solo debut first surfaced, so the term is consistent. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay, never mind what I said just then. I see what I misunderstood here. The way you emphasized the "some secondary sources" in your opening made it sound like a much more significant contingent than it actually is. In this case, the sources calling it an EP are outliers and totally ignorable against the sea of "debut solo album". QuietHere (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I apologize for causing confusion with the underlining. It was meant to indicate that a few sources do use the EP terminology, but that they are in the minority compared to those that use album. I have adjusted my wording above accordingly. But yes, your ending statement pretty much sums it up. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with Carlobunnie statement. Korean call "Face" an "extended play" on every music streaming plateform. (for example, Melon Face intro page) every Kpop soloist called their release where it has less 10 songs a "mini-album". Why did you think Jimin one as a special case? (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_67&oldid=1154311768"