Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Non-Standard Infoboxes - April 1

I think several people here keep up with Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes, including myself. There are two album articles that having been popping up there again and again as edit wars flame over what type of albums they are.

• The Beatles' Story
• Lil Uzi Vert vs. the World 2

These edit wars have become somewhat contentious, with some participants unaware of what the TYPE field in the infobox is supposed to do. "Lil Uzi Vert" even has a warning in the source code (< ! -- X -- > ) to not change the type. I've been watching the two of these and tried to intervene a few times, but to no avail. Any ideas? Note that a change that makes sense for this project is probably going to be reverted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Lil Uzi Vert vs. the World 2 is like a reissue of his previous studio album, so the infobox could follow Kylie Christmas: Snow Queen Edition, The Black Parade/Living with Ghosts, and The Fame Monster. As for The Beatles' Story, I'm not really sure about it, it's neither recorded in studio, nor performed live. Maybe it could be considered compilation album, I mean it's a "compilation" of various stuff (interview, songs, documentary)? Bluesatellite (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It's described as a documentary record/album in two reliable sources dealing with the band's discography and wider career. I've seen no sources defining it as a compilation, though. The Beatles were quite capable of releasing compilation albums, and those same reliable sources (and many more) describe the latter records as compilation albums, because that's what they are. I don't understand the problem. The infobox at The Beatles' Story is currently rendered in a colour that Template:Infobox album#type defines as "other" – which is perfectly accurate given the options available. But it sounds, here, as if original research is preferred to ensure that the album fits into one of the non-"other" types. I'm sure there were other records like this around that time. The Beatles Tapes from the David Wigg Interviews would be another perhaps, although I'm not sure its content goes much beyond straight interview. JG66 (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Spoken word album needs a permanent, standardised "type" for infobox. There's so many albums with this type, some of which don't even relate to music. Live album is the recording of concert (live show), so calling an album of interviews as "live" album is misleading to me. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Bluesatellite – in particular there are several comedy albums that are both landmarks in comedy and notable albums in their own right, such as The Button Down Mind of Bob Newhart, ...Is It Something I Said? and No Cure for Cancer. Richard3120 (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an excellent discussion of how those two albums should be categorized, but we also have the edit wars over the TYPE field as well. Edit summaries and warnings in the code have gotten contentious. The guy who has altered the TYPE for the Beatles record said "who cares?" in one edit summary. I have said several times to various parties that the TYPE field needs a particular value while the item's unconventional nature can be described in the text, and provided links to the Infobox template rules, but that message just doesn't get across. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Er yes. And the message that we're talking about that needs to be addressed hasn't got through to you, has it? Reason being you're so obsessed with rules and ticking a little box. And if we're talking about the issue here, you might want to use something other than "The guy who has altered the TYPE for the Beatles record", because we're all editors with usernames. Also, you're making out this is some longstanding problem – I've never heard of you, never had any interaction with you until that recent, single example. So yes, I wrote "who cares" about type, but your approach appears to be "who cares" about ensuring an album is presented accurately and without indulging in original research to tick that precious box. JG66 (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of you before either. But I have heard that the Albums Project, where the present discussion is taking place, has style guidelines that help with the categorization and maintenance of articles for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. This Project has many members who care about that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Rocktopia and Metal Heads Forever as reliable sources

There's been a couple of AfDs where the article creator has stated that these two websites are reliable sources – as a non-rock/metalhead myself it would be good to get some consensus as to whether these can be used as reliable sources.

• Rocktopia – website seems to have editorial control and is linked to Fireworks magazine... I don't know if this magazine is well-established and widely available. One thing that might be a concern here is that they run their own record label, so there could be a conflict of interest in using their reviews for their own albums.
• Metal Heads Forever – this looks more problematic... it's been around for ten years, but it still looks like it's a worldwide community fan site, overseen by its founder Dave Mahoney. Can't see any evidence of credentials for its writers. Richard3120 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Rocktopia – What would be its label? Rocktopia Records?! It is a minor label. The only prominent band that has already gone on to Frontiers for 4 years now is Gary Hughes' Ten, in which Don Airey and Mark Zonder also played. Therefore there is no conflict of interest. As for reliability, I think it is enough to navigate on Google to detect it.
• Metal Heads Forever – As for Metal Heads Forever, looking at the site, it seems anything but a simple community, given the accuracy of the reviews and the importance of the musicians who lend themselves to the interviews published (one of the last, Derrick Green of Sepultura). User:Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ive never heard of either, which doesn’t bode well anecdotally considering how much I’ve worked in rock music articles in the last decade. Sergecross73 msg me 12:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand the comment about the "accuracy of the reviews"... all reviews are subjective opinions, there is no "right" or "wrong" review. Richard3120 (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Not to be mean, but virtually nothing that user said would constitute a valid rationale as far as Wikipedia goes. Sergecross73 msg me 21:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Generally Unreliable With no editorial boards, the only things that could be considered reliable would be that an album they reviewed might exist and a quote they've made, if uncontroversial, would be true. I would not use them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - These are just amateur enthusiast bloggers. As their About Us page suggests, they have no particular professional qualifications beyond “liking metal music”. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

BrooklynVegan reviews as a reliable source

BrooklynVegan is often described as a music blog but has an editorial and writing staff. Their news content is already in use on Wikipedia, however, I thought it would be a good idea to have a consensus on the album reviews. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Do their writers have credentials? Do they have any editorial policy? Their “about us” page doesn’t really say anything beyond their names and links to their social media. That’s generally not how professional publications do it... Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Should AllMusic and other non-periodical websites be italicized?

I recently have an argument with another editor suggests that AllMusic and any other non-periodical website should be italicized. Because in their opinion, the "cite web" template to create a reference, whatever is entered after "website=" appears at the foot of the article in italics. I think that's a silly argument because the web site template don't have anything to do with the websites being italicized, and appears that the editor don't fully understand MOS:ITALICTITLE. Should AllMusic, Tidal, and other non-periodical websites be italicized? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I certainly think it should be standardised either one way or the other... it seems silly that we insist on "AllMusic" not being capitalised in that album ratings table, and yet it appears as "AllMusic" in the references, because the website parameter italicises everything. A similar thing happens for the BBC when we use their website as a source, for example. Richard3120 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be italicised in main text. This is the problem that a few of us raised at the cite template help (so-called!) page: that website=/work= renders all text in italics, and unlike in years gone by, one can't now add markup there to de-italicise words like AllMusic to match how the words appear in the article and even in the article for the website. It wasn't just the titles of music websites – World Health Organization, United Nations, loads of examples came up.

So, the situation you're referring to is, imo, an example of how that issue was always likely to roll on into article style and for the wrong reasons – in that restrictions in the templates could be allowed to dictate prose style, whereas it should be article and encyclopaedia-wide prose style that gets carried through into cite, table, box, etc templates. It used to be possible to just use publisher= for non-ital words such as AllMusic, as an alternative to de-italicising inside website=, and that's the way I'd seen it done for years, in hundreds of articles. But that was dealt with by the template editors also, with bots changing all examples (and often introducing errors). The only way around this issue currently is to write the reference out manually and avoid the cite template altogether. JG66 (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts cites MOS:ITALICTITLE. It's worth reading what it says: "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon or HuffPost). Online non-user-generated encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online)." Is anyone denying that All Music is an "online non-user-generated encyclopedia"? Further, is anyone really claiming that AllMusic is a publisher? Emeraude (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I am. AllMusic, like AllMovie, is an online database. We have AllMusic, not AllMusic, in no end of FAs and GAs, going back years – I contributed to this one recently – and that's how it's always appeared at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, far as I can remember. Besides, I wouldn't trust that the MOS wording hasn't been doctored of late to steer towards italicisation, and not necessarily with consensus support. JG66 (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This has been the subject of a RfC and follow-up (complete with sock puppets, good luck!). One problem is when Template:AllMusic is used (can be used with <ref></ref>), it produces:

• Erlewine, Stephen Thomas. Review of Physical Graffiti at AllMusic. Retrieved March 30, 2014.

while Template:Cite web with |website=AllMusic or |work=AllMusic, produces:

• Erlewine, Stephen Thomas. "Led Zeppelin: Physical Graffiti – Review". AllMusic. Retrieved March 30, 2014.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Emeraude: You already tell me about that in your talk page and you have failed to convince me. Just as JG66 pointed out, just because the cite web template italicized AllMusic or any other website doesn't mean it should be italicized in the main text. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I know what I told you on my talk page. I'm not talking to you here. Not everyone here has been involved on my talk page. You invited me to come here and give my views. I have. Emeraude (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I have wondered about this as well. I don't italicize, due to its own page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Thanks to all for any further guidance... Caro7200 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"Traditional album sales"?

I've been seeing this phrase - "Traditional album sales" - used a lot here at articles for modern album releases, in the context of sales recorded in total as Album-equivalent units (a mid-2010s invention). Would the phrase "wholesale" be a simpler and more apt substitute for "traditional album sales"? I'm assuming both refer to the purchase of the product in its entirety, right? Regardless, I'm sure WP:AUDIENCE and WP:RECENTISM are relevant here - "traditional" may go over the heads of many younger readers who won't be familiar with the so-called "tradition" of having no choice but to buy an album in its entirety... isento (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think wholesale is going to be any more easily understood. I usually just use some sort of combination of “sales” or “units sold”. Usually, in my experience at least, I’m writing about album equivalent units right, which I wiki-link to, so I feel like that helps provide context and guidance over what “sales” means. Linking to the respective charts generally helps too, depending on the subject. I commonly link to Billboard 200 and Top Album Sales to explain the context, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think seeing as both Billboard and the OCC in the UK call those charts "Album Sales" on their websites I think we should stick to calling them that, to avoid any confusion over which chart and sales methodology we are talking about. I'm pretty sure Music Week talks about "album sales" rather than "wholesale" when discussing these figures in articles, and I assume Billboard magazine does the same. Richard3120 (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Isento I'm not a native English speaker, but is downloading an album in Itunes considered part of "wholesale"? Because "traditional album sales" includes both physical and digital product selling, as opposed to service-subscription (streaming). Bluesatellite (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources - reports of album sales - such as these ([1], [2]) use "traditional album sales" in reference to both physical and digital copies of an entire album. isento (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Isento: Yeah I know, I already said the same. Because, to me, "wholesale" sounds like a company put their (physical) goods in retail stores. So, is legal downloading part of "wholesale"? That's what I'm asking. Bluesatellite (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps then phrasing it instead as "copies sold"? isento (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Example. isento (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s how I generally do it. I think that’s good. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Traditional album sales - or making the differentiation between sales/units sold and album-equivalent units is the easiest/best way to distinguish it. That's how many chart providers describe it too. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Just came across this discussion... If I'm understanding the discussion correctly, I have mostly seen physical and digital copies being called "pure sales", as opposed to units (which of course include streaming). This is common terminology that Billboard uses and has been using since the inception of streaming came into play with how albums/units are counted. It's the most understood term in the record industry. "Traditional album sales" is a similar, but secondary term.

AshMusique (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Works postponed due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

I've added some album articles to Category:Works postponed due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.

I wonder if we should create the subcategory Category:Albums postponed due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic?

---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, Seems fair since there are categories for other media, including one that only has five members (so far). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, Thanks.  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Citations for track listings and personnel

I searched the archive but didn't see a relevant thread, pardon me if this is already covered. While most track listings are a very straightforward section that strictly has the track listing itself, I'm seeing more and more articles where someone is providing a citation for the track listing. This seems unnecessary: the album is the source for the track listing. This is absurd. We don't need an infinite series of sources where a third-party needs to say what's on the actual album itself and then another third party needs to say that the first third party says it, etc. If you want to know what's on an album, look at the album. Just like how if you want to know what's in an article, read the article. First-hand sources are perfectly acceptable for claims about the thing itself.

Additionally, it seems like these citations are frequently to stores. Per WP:AFFILIATE, we should discourage this practice, especially when someone is just using the store to reproduce the album's liner notes. Again, the source is the liner notes, so you can use {{Cite AV media}} if really necessary.

Related, I see similar citations for personnel on an album. Personnel are commonly listed in liner notes but not always and those are not always accurate, so I am concerned about the same problem of citing a store instead of the actual source which is the liner notes to the album but I am also interested in seeing if we think that personnel sections should just be commonly understood to be sourced to the liner notes except when otherwise necessary.

So I am proposing the following changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice:

• In regards to track listings, we should explicitly say that they do not need sources, as the source is the album. In the rare cases where a track listing somehow includes controversial information (e.g. the songwriting credits are inaccurate), we should encourage the use of third-party sources.
• We should explicitly include language that directs readers to WP:AFFILIATE and asks them to find non-commercial sources of information.
• Include language for personnel section to the effect that the most likely source for most personnel sections in album articles is the liner notes and we only need citations from third parties if there is some value added by them. E.g. the liner notes say "Band [x] is Johnny, Sam, and Tina" but a third party source explicitly states that Tina played dobro on "Song 5", etc. I think we should also reiterate the warning from WP:AFFILIATE and refer editors to {{Cite AV media}} if they need to explicitly cite the liner notes.

Thoughts? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Completely agreed on all counts. My only addition is that I do think a source is warranted for track lists when albums are yet to be released. It helps weed out speculative and hoax track lists. But as soon as it’s out, it’s not longer needed. Sergecross73 msg me 23:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this and I concur with all of this.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

My instinct is that track listings at least shouldn't require citations in the same way that plot sections don't for works of fiction... Popcornfud (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I made a first pass: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Albums%2FAlbum_article_style_advice&type=revision&diff=951215691&oldid=937972527 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. I also proposed the removal of "producer" (that already listed on Track listing) from "Personnel" section, just like songwriters. Why do we need duplicates? Executive producer can stay on personnel section obviously. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with that, and think that should probably be a separate discussion as to not muddy the waters up on a consensus here... Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Bluesatellite, Producers actually helped make the album, whereas songwriters do sometimes and sometimes not. Many track listings do not include the producer of tracks as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I see. If the producers are not listed on the tracklisting, then it's a must to include it on the "Personnel" section. I only pointed out the duplication. Especially when "personnel" section is usually placed right after the "tracklisting" section. Lemonade (Beyoncé album)#Personnel is a good example, since this album has a ton of producers and songwriters. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: I agreed with most of the things you said, I know there has been some disagree with Tidal being used as a source for album credits with editor Nice4What in the past. That's probably one of the reasons why started this discussion.

@Bluesatellite: I also disagree with you as well. Just as Koavf pointed out, I think we should keep the producer parameter in the track listing template, and I feel this topic should be in another discussion later. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts I never said to remove producers from "Tracklisting" template. I said we exclude them from "Personnel" section if it's already on the tracklisting. But you're right that it should be discussed in a separate thread. Again, I agree with the issue Koavf pointed out on here. Cheers Bluesatellite (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This is missing the point as to why Tidal is even used. Tidal, unlike the other streaming services, lists all credits for personnel/production/songwriting. The citation isn't just for the track order, and more and more albums are becoming streaming-only so no physical liner notes exist. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nice4What: Spotify often has credits too - its not exclusive to tidal. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 13:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Spotify has recently added the credits, but its only accessible for people with Spotify accounts. Tidal has always had full credits and they're easily accessible for all users (which also might make a point for using Tidal when liner notes are not digitally available). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I just tried the credits feature on Spotify and, at least for the artist I tried (Radiohead), it's seriously lacking. Much less information given than in the liner notes. Popcornfud (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The point is that Tidal often has more information that Spotify, and that with a lack of liner notes, Tidal is the go-to. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

While Tidal and the like probably shouldn't be used at all, I assumed that when sources are listed in an article that the physical liner notes weren't used. With more and more streaming, downloads, etc., it is more likely that the actual liner notes will not be consulted. It is better for the reader to know what the source is and anything which even hints that this is unneeded should not be added to style advice/guidance pages because of the potential for misunderstanding/misapplication. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I would agree. If liner notes are used, cite them. If Tidal is used instead, cite that. Let's not confused the reader. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice4What, Liner notes can be digital: no one said anything about them having to be physical. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

They don't have to be, but often (for hip-hop releases especially) there are no "liner notes" other than Tidal credits and metadata. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Still don't think that explains why the source is needed in the track listing section as it is often included in the credits section anyway. I really think the whole discussion is neither here nor there as long as somewhere in the article there is a link to the liner/tidal or another reliable source. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"Personnel" and "Track listing" are two separate subsections, thus both subsections need to be cited. Why not have the source cited in both places? It's just a matter of using the parameter <ref name="Tidal"/>. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, if the actual liner notes are used and there is no controversy or dispute, I don't think that {{cite AV media notes}} is necessary. However, there has been a fair amount of subtle vandalism in some articles, when running times have been changed, musical instrument brands have added, etc., so including a source is always a good approach. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It appears that Tidal, Spotify, and other streaming/download sites don't provide a copy of the actual record company liner notes. So, where do they get their "album credits" and how reliable should we consider these? Are they much better than AllMusic or discogs? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Ojorojo, I've asked this before more than once and gotten that "they come from the record labels" but that claim had no source. I'd be very interested to see if anyone can answer this question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

If Tidal has different information than Spotify, then they're not using the same source or they extract it differently. Walter Görlitz mentioned that AllMusic used a Gracenote-type service and my experience has been that AM credits are definitely not reliable. Without knowing whether a particular provider is using an unadulterated official source, we should not treat it as being on a level with the actual liner notes. Meanwhile, without including an "Album credits from" source statement in WP articles, readers may conclude that they come from some fundamental source ("the actual album itself"), which doesn't appear to be the case. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Ojorojo, Whether or not a source is official is really irrelevant: liner notes are sometimes inaccurate. Whether or not AllMusic or Tidal are "official", it's not clear which one is accurate when they contradict one another. Do we have any way of knowing if one of them is more accurate than another? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that AllMusic uses a customer-driven track listing database, which is what Gracenote does. I don't know how they add track titles, but they do have errors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

RE: Where AllMusic gets its credit information from: "Updates to credits should be sent to our data provider, TiVo. Information on how to contact TiVo to add new credits can be found on our Product Submissions page. You may submit credit-related corrections to TiVo editors using the Submit Corrections links available in the sidebar on artist and album pages. Please try to be as specific as possible in your submission. Submissions that are vague or inconclusive cannot be acted upon and may be rejected.

Please do not contact AllMusic about the status of data corrections; we don't control which data is corrected or how long it takes to apply corrections, and we can't move up your correction in priority or within a specific time frame. TiVo appreciates the time you take to send this information to them, but due to the immense volume of correspondence they receive, they're unable to directly respond to most of your submissions." [3]--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

L.A. Woman (subject to a lot a vandalism) had a very detailed personnel section,[4] but not from the liner notes. Searches were unable to confirm many of the details, so the section was trimmed to what is actually in the liner.[5] New sources need to be identified so any added info can be confirmed. Otherwise, original research and disinformation can be slipped in under the guise of "liner notes". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This is why we should cite liner notes when used. It seems to me to be a non-issue. Also, streaming services such as Tidal get their liner notes from the metadata provided by the albums/songs whenever they're uploaded. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It's bizarre that sources for details, such as songwriters, producers, personnel, etc., that are shown as AllMusic, iTunes, etc., are being removed from articles, but the actual information is left intact. I guess we are supposed to assume that it is correct, although we can't verify the source. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes to WP:ALBUMSTYLE, re: bottom of the article

Please see these two edits to WP:ALBUMSTYLE for changes I made. At least one person has objected to at least one of the things I added, so it's worth discussing here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I will have to agree with the Authority Control inclusion. Like with music artist articles, it's a way of verifying information, for example, tracklists. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Why instruct people to add a see also section that sends people to a list of albums released that year? See also sections are always optional, as the MoS states: MOS:SEEALSO. We shouldn't be contradicting the MoS and telling everyone to include a particular link. EddieHugh (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I see no reason to encourage this practice. One could just click the YYYY albums category if truly interested in knowing other albums released the same year, but there’s no need to add to the See also section of every album article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

No reason for them. Finding other albums released in the same year can be done through categories. Those are already on every article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Unneeded. Also, consensus for changes to the style advice page should be reached before being implemented. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I was directed to this discussion by Koavf on my talk page because I was independently purging the unnecessary See Also: List of 2020 albums listings on multiple 2020 album articles without being aware that Koavf had added an undiscussed policy about See Also listings. I have purged about 1/3 of the listings, but will hold off on purging the other 2/3rds until we come to a consensus. I was purging these listings not as a protest against a bad policy but because this is something I do regularly over years. I admit I was surprised at how many were associated with the 2020 album list, even albums that are not listed on the 2020 album list.

I see that there is now an unvoted-on policy about the See Also listing at the bottom of the page. My objection has been that this is the function of Categories, and adding the See Also serves no real purpose other than bloating the article a little, and maybe adding one more section which would allow the Table of Contents to activate and display at the top of the page. I guess one reason against this is avoiding duplicate linking (MOS:REPEATLINK), but that is just me conflating linking to a list with the Category lists. Still, excessive and serves no purpose. Mburrell (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Mburrell, I did not add any policies. Please don't make false statements. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice is barely an essay. I don't think adding a link to albums by year has gained any traction. I think that should be removed, at least for now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Please remove it from the article style advice. I've got another issue relating to what should or should not appear in album (and song) See Also listings, but I'll raise that below or perhaps at WT Songs. JG66 (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the "See also" section per this discussion. ƏXPLICIT 05:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC relating to MusicBrainz at WP:VPT

Now launched at WP:VPT#RfC: should the "Authority control" template continue to include MusicBrainz identifiers?. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Categories idea

Should we create categories for solo albums created by members of more famous bands? For example, we could have a "Solo albums by Beatles members" category, and include Imagine (album), McCartney (album), etc.

My logic is that it might be useful to see all these things in one place. But I rarely use categories as a Wikipedia reader, and as an editor it's one of the things I work on the least, so I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not. There's probably a reason it hasn't been done already. Any thoughts? Popcornfud (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You're suggesting some sort of overarching category that would then have Category:John Lennon albums, Category:Paul McCartney albums, etc. as subcategories? Richard3120 (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120, that's an implication that I hadn't thought of, but yes I suppose so! Popcornfud (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, My solution for this is to use {{catseealso}}. E.g. Category:Led Zeppelin albums uses this to link to Category:Robert Plant albums and vice versa. Is there something about this method that's insufficient? Could that be improved? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, hmm, interesting. I didn't know about this, thanks. Certainly seems like a good idea to use this to connect related categories where it makes sense.

However, it's not quite the same thing, because 1) you still have to navigate between individual categories and 2) you can only see the "see also" links by being in a different place initially, so it's less discoverable. Popcornfud (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, re: #2: where would you see Category:John Lennon solo albums? I'm confused as to how you would discover this and from where...? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean with the "Category:John Lennon solo albums" example, so I'll try with the initial idea instead.

If we had a "Solo albums by Beatles members" category, it would be discoverable at the bottom of every article about a solo album by a Beatles member. Readers can think "oh, that sounds interesting", follow the link and end up in the category page with all the solo albums by each member listed in one place.

However, if we just use see-also links to connect the categories as you suggest, they become much less discoverable. A reader would have to end up on the category page for, say, John Lennon, to realise they can move to other (individual) Beatles solo categories. Popcornfud (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Similar attempts were deleted in the past although they go back to 2007 (see Category:The Cars' solo albums and Category:New Edition solo albums). So would you categorize each article on a John Lennon album as "solo albums by Beatles members" or just make it a parent to Category:John Lennon albums, etc.? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, thanks for finding those older cases. I took a look at the deletion discussions but didn't completely follow them. One comment said "The additional categorization by musicians' former groups has little utility and sets a bad precedent"; I personally think it would be pretty useful to see all the Beatles' solo albums in one place but perhaps others disagree?

As I said, I have little experiences working with categories so I'll defer to what more experienced editors think about whether this is a good idea.

As for your question - do you have a preference? It certainly sounds as if just making Category:John Lennon albums a child of Category:Solo albums by the Beatles would be faster. But do parent categories appear in lists of categories on article pages? Popcornfud (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I'm going to make a category for "Solo albums by Radiohead members".

If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, let me know. Popcornfud (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Please identify restrictions. Is this something for all bands, say Traveling Wilburys or Velvet Revolver? Chicago? Commodores? What about side projects of band members, say Mike + the Mechanics versus specifically solo albums by Mike Rutherford. Are all of Sammy Hagar's solo albums "solo albums by Van Halen members" even though he was a well-established artist before he even joined the band? Do Chris Cornell albums get categorized as "solo albums by Soundgarden members", "solo albums by Audioslave members", and "solo albums by Temple of the Dog members"? Just things to consider. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, can't answer any of those questions without knowing more about those acts. I am sort of assuming this sort of category would be used on a case-by-case basis.

imo it makes sense for Radiohead members, as 1) each member was famous for Radiohead years before doing any side projects 2) Radiohead is still a going concern - ie not something that ended years ago and no longer relevant to the members' solo careers. In the case of Radiohead, I would exclude side project albums such as Amok (Atoms for Peace album), as it's an album by a band led by Radiohead singer Thom Yorke rather than a solo album by Thom Yorke.

If similar categories don't make sense for other groups (and I'm not saying they do), does that mean one should not be made for Radiohead? Genuine question, I have no idea how categories work. Popcornfud (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Categories aren't typically created case by case. It sets up a scheme that can be applied to similar cases. I think without well-defined parameters, people will take this in anyway they see fit. What would an appropriate parent category be for all of these creations? Category:Solo albums by musical group? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, another good question, to which I have no answer.

Anyway, it sounds like there are good reasons to holding off creating this category so I'll leave it unless someone else wants to chime in. Thanks for your feedback, it is helpful. Popcornfud (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, I appreciate you trying to be innovative, I just think this idea is a miss. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, I object. I don't think this is practical or useful idea. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Cover arts used at "Music to Be Murdered By"

An alternative cover art of Music to Be Murdered By and the cover art of 1950s album showing Alfred Hitchcock have been discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 February 23. The nominations were relisted twice, so I invite you to discussion. --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC for omitting Slovakia/Czech Rep. Radio 100 when a song has already charted on Single Top 100

Dear all, please will you be so kind to leave a comment regarding this RFC at Wikipedia talk: Record charts#Request for comment: Slovakia and Czech Republic Radio Top 100 to be omitted when a song has already charted on Single Top 100. Many thanks. CoolMarc 11:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding "favorable"/"unfavorable" to the albums rating table

We have to revisit this old chestnut because an editor has started re-adding these words to the album ratings. I already have one ongoing dispute with this editor, but this one affects this project more directly, so please feel free to participate at Template talk:Album ratings#Adding "favorable"/"unfavorable" to the albums rating table. Richard3120 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

AllMusic sidebar for biographies?

We know it is generally unreliable for genres but what about for dates of birth as seen here for example? Robvanvee 09:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s generally unreliable overall. I thought in past discussions it was found to be generated from another source altogether. Sergecross73 msg me 11:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Found the first discussion easily but not the 2nd one as easily so I thought I'd just ask. After a bit more of a search I found the 2nd and yes, It appears the consensus applied to the sidebar as a whole. I have updated the link to the 2017 discussion. Thanks Sergecross73. Robvanvee 12:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I totally get it too, there’s been a lot of discussions about Allmusic over the years. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

AllMusic states that almost everything (including factual data and reviews) comes from "our data provider, TiVo" (here, click on 'The information about an artist or album on AllMusic is incorrect'). How those things are created remains a mystery. I don't see a consensus that the entire sidebar is unreliable; if there is one, that fact should be made much clearer. Is there evidence that information such as dates of birth are often wrong? EddieHugh (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean, there’s years and years of people pointing out erroneous dates and info, and rather questionable genre labels. Quite the opposite, if errors are observed and little is known about where the info comes from, it should be considered unreliable until people start presenting evidence that it’s reliable. We don’t just default to a reliable stance... Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I had a major battle last year just to get a sentence added pointing out that AllMusic dates are not infallible. For that, I had to present a lot of evidence, and it was suggested that I should demonstrate that 50%+1 of entries were wrong before any change to the advice could be made! So I seek clarity on exactly what consensuses we have, and what evidence is required. I don't trust AllMusic for much, and would prefer to use it only for its main text (that's attributed to an author), but we should be basing our collective decisions on evidence. What's the evidence against dates of birth and other personal details in AM's biographies? EddieHugh (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There are no infallible sources. AllMusic is no worse as a source than an average magazine (online or printed). I don't know, maybe they are being "too free" with the information they put in the "genre" fields, but why should we not trust them with something as basic as birth dates? --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

AllMusic's printed reference works, such as the All Music Guide to Jazz and All Music Guide to the Blues, which contain artist bios, are usually considered reliable sources. However, it's unclear how much of this info made it over to the online bios. I've seen some discrepancies on dates and other details between the two. For anything not in its online reviews, it's better to use other sources. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed many AllMusic mistakes over the years. I try to use it solely for the professional reviews. As Moscow Connection points out, all RS make mistakes. There have been many times, for example, where one RS claims that album X is the artist's 11th album, another RS says it's the 10th, another RS says it's the 13th... Caro7200 (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen errors in AllMusic biographies. Especially chronological errors.
The question here is, where do they they take the birth dates from? They wouldn't just invent stuff like that, or would they? If there is a birth date entered, they surely got it from a source that they considered reliable. Any music magazine would do the same. (It happens rather often when different sources give different birth dates. I don't see evidence that AllMusic is less reliable in that regard than an average music-related resource.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the sidebars. The textual biographies are reliable as any other reliable source. Sidebars might not be--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Spill Magazine as a reliable source

@Mjs1991: I saw this edit adding a review from Spill. I'd never heard of the publication before and don't see it listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources. Can anyone (including Mjs) give perspective on if we should approve it as a good source or recommend against it on this page? Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

From a search I did of it within Wikipedia, several album articles seem to use Spill Magazine as a rating. Seems to be of a reliable source, but we'll see what others think--Mjs1991 (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I've come across it a bit recently in album articles. They have a huge number of contributors – writers and photographers – and that list seems to be something of a mixed bag. First up, Aaron Badgley, is the real deal, I believe; I recognise him from Goldmine magazine (print version, back in the '00s) and he's written for AllMusic also.

Looking down the list (alphabetical by first name), there's mention under Andre Skinner that he's been writing for Spill "for over 12 years, dating back to the print days". So if it was a print magazine, I'd say that's encouraging. But clearly, some of those contributors don't cut it – perhaps we'd need to discern on a case-by-case basis. JG66 (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Because it 1) has reputable writers from other publications, and 2) has an editorial team, I will presume 3), it is accurate, reputable, and fact-checks. I say it's reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

These are strong enough arguments out of the gate. I'm willing to re-add it to the article where I moved it to an external link. I think it should be added as a reliable source and if necessary, add a caveat a la AllMusic or Sputnikmusic that says to be a little discerning or that certain parts of the site are good and others aren't, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Source question

Would this source by happymag.tv be considered a reliable source? – zmbro _(talk) 20:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I've seen this source added to several articles. Its "About" page includes "our editorial team is made up of equal parts active contributors in the arts community (from community radio, management and bands) through to young journalists and established writers."[6] However, only names are listed without any background info, so it is unknown what else or for whom they have written that might make them "established". Maybe this is one for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The author of that article, Luke Sunders, is not listed at https://happymag.tv/about/. Regardless what the decision about the site is at RSN, I would say that entry shouldn't be used unless an historical copy of the page shows that author there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

His Facebook page [7] states that he has been working at Happy Mag since last June, but also that he is doing a creative writing/journalism course at university... perhaps he is on a placement or internship at the magazine. Richard3120 (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Lists of live performances

There is a discussion currently on-going about live performance lists which might be of interest to you at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Are_lists_of_performances_a_thing? → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No critical reception

I just came across Template:NCR, which was intended to be added to album and song articles that lack a reception section (No Critical Reception). It has existed since 2007 but doesn't seem to have been publicized much and using it only adds it to the hidden Category:Album and single articles that lack a critical reception section. No message is added to the article. It also seems to serve the same purpose as Category:Articles with album ratings that need to be turned into prose, which has over 12,000 articles, but at the very least those articles have to make use of the ratings template. I don't think the template is necessary (and I would gladly send it to TfD), but if others think it's something to be encouraged, I would recommend adding it to the Album Article Style Advice page because I don't think anybody really knows about it. It should also probably be moved to Template:No critical reception with "NCR" as the shortcut. @Esprit15d: What do you think? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Is MuuMuse reliable?

Hello! I was wondering if MuuMuse is considered a reliable source. It is run solely by Bradley Stern, who has written for others reliable publications, such as Idolator, MTV, Queerty, V Magazine, Attitude and Interview Magazine. I consider he has enough experience in music journalism, but there is no consensus yet. Thank you, --Paparazzzi (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You should bring this up directly at WP:RSN not here. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 12:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that’s not true. I mean, that’s an option, but this is where we generally discuss entries for WP:RSMUSIC or WP:NOTRSMUSIC. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As long as it isn't for BLP statements, yes.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a blog by Bradley Stern. The About Us page says ME...I AM BRADLEY Stern. The Elusive Bloggeuse. Founded in 2007, MuuMuse is a pop music blog dedicated to music commentary, reviews, interviews, exclusives and extensive analysis of the artistry of Britney Spears. Although he has written for a few minor publications, the blog does not appear as the most neutral or professional source to me, especially for a FAC - the reason why Paparazzzi is asking. Cool Marc ✉ 17:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this concerns me too. If it’s just his own blog, then there’s the issue/limitations of WP:SPS at the very least. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

When Brad writes for MTV News, they have an editorial team and checking process. With MuuMuse, its self published so Brad can write what he likes - there's no editorial process. I'd say unless you're linking directly to a video he has posted any written prose shouldn't be considered fact from her personal blog (MuuMuse). → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 18:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, it’d be similar to how we handle writers like Anthony Fontano and The Needle Drop. He’s generally not usable unless he’s occasionally contributing to other reliable sources, not his self published stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

So MuuMuse is a self-published blog. In that case, Wikipedia:SPS states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Couldn't this apply for him, who has worked for several years for reliable publications and has enough expertise regarding pop music journalism? Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That is very subjective as his blog content hasn't been reproduced by reliable sources but he has written for them. There's a distinct difference. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

But is it relevant whether reliable sources have reproduced his blog content? All it says on this point at Wikipedia:SPS (to repeat the above) is: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." JG66 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with JG66. His work doesn't have to be reproduced, he needs to have done previous work in reliable sources. If that's the case, he's reliable as a self-published expert, with the BLP limitations that entails.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not pushing for it as RS, necessarily, I've got no experience with Bradley Stern/MuuMuse at all. I'm just pointing out that there doesn't seem to be a requirement that anyone's blog content should be picked up by other sources, only that the blogger is already sufficiently established in the relevant field. JG66 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s no hard requirement to be published by an RS to be used, it’s just a common way of drawing the line for SPS like this, both here and at other WikiProjects. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

So does that mean that MuuMuse can be used according to that point at Wikipedia:SPS? Paparazzzi (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, though if it’s largely a SPS blog, then we should probably take a closer look at the bloggers credentials to see how to apply his usability as a source. Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your responses! Now I know the source can be used. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Ivor Novello Awards page

Possibly not directly related to this WikiProject, but I thought I should let interested members of the project know about this post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, seeing as this WikiProject tends to get more traffic than WP:MU. Richard3120 (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Dua Lipa (album)

Dear all, will you be so kind to leave a comment at Talk:Dua Lipa (album)#RfC - "New Love" and "New Rules" single descriptions to help achieve consensus regarding the descriptions of two of the album singles. Many thanks. Cool Marc ✉ 19:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Can someone help with a Personnel section for Drag Is Magic + Vagina?

I know how to create a Personnel section from AllMusic, but I'm less confident about extracting the Metadata from a source like Spotify, Tidal, or the Apple Store. Would someone be willing to add a Personnel section to the Drag Is Magic, which I'm hoping to nominate for Good article status soon? Also, which credits go in the infobox? Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Ditto Vagina (album). Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Another believer, Spotify only includes writers and producers. I've checked Tidal and there's no credits for Drag is Magic (see here). It's the same for Vagina (see here). Drag albums tend to only be released digitally and to cut down on costs, there's no reason to produce full credits - this costs money and takes time. As many drag stars record as independent artists, self release or work with small labels unfortunately its often impossible to source anything detailed. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 15:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Lil-unique1, Thank you. I've nominated both articles for Good status so I just wanted to make sure no further crediting was required via Personnel sections or the infobox. Your help/feedback are appreciated. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

There might be an interest of discussion about UK certifications

Over at Template_talk:Certification_Table_Entry#UK_Sales_vs._Shipments. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion please

This artist's page is on my talk page. A new album, Canvas (Moya Brennan album), was added recently but it's a few years old. I didn't expect much and I was not surprised by how sparse it was. Could someone please take a quick look to determine if this should be redirected or not something similar? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not looking great. The second source is an interview promoting her following album, and Canvas is only mentioned in passing. I would have expected reviews to maybe appear in the quality British newspapers (The Times, Daily Telegraph, The Guardian) but I can't see anything there. It didn't get reviewed in the now-defunct fRoots, so the only other likely sources are Songlines and the monthly music magazines like Q and Mojo. But none of these last three have online archives, so it may have to be redirected until print versions can be checked. Richard3120 (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about promo singles template

May be of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_30#Template:Promotional_singles. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Another RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles

Please add your comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Another RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

About Robert Christgau

What's the justification for using Robert Christgau--who is a person, not a publication--as a source for album ratings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.215.109 (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

He’s one of the biggest music critics in existence? (I’m personally not a fan, so don’t mistake this for a fanboy response or sometime. But it is what it is. He’s the Siskel and Ebert of music.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused by the premise of the question here: he's a reliable source. What does it matter if he's a person or a publication or a collective school of rock criticism or an angel? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not like he's only ever written for his own website/books – he started out at Creem during its early 1970s heyday, and then moved on to The Village Voice for many years. Like Serge, I'm not a great fan, but he has a proper background as a critic for highly regarded music publications. Richard3120 (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Justin, it’s hard to tell for sure, but based on experience, the IP probably got told that the great Youtuber “StinkyJohn6969420” with 100 subscribers got rejected on the grounds of WP:SPS but somehow Christgau “gets a free pass”? Its a false equivalency argument I’ve had with people plenty of times in the past. Happens a lot in the video game content area too. Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sergecross73, Not sure where you're from but the American impeached acting president I'm sure can do something about that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps if he gets retweeted on Twitter by Mr President, then he’ll be an RS. Sigh. Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sergecross73, Sorry for being obscure with my dumb joke. What I meant was maybe the acting president has nothing better to do with his time than intervene in how an online platform self-regulates in order to promote "fairness". (I didn't sleep last nite, so I'm a little wonky. :/) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No no, I knew what you meant. I was trying to make a tangential reference to it myself. Sergecross73 msg me 01:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Have been surprised by how many editors dislike Christgau. He's always been among my favorites, although his short Honorable Mention reviews are often obnoxious and not particularly informative. Having flashbacks to a decade plus ago when Piero partisans would bring up Christgau to justify all the Scaruffi nonsense...Caro7200 (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Caro7200: I think that's exactly it... his full-length reviews for Creem and The Village Voice were fine, but the one-liners on his website often do little to explain the rating he gives a record. Richard3120 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

His mini-blurb type "reviews" sometimes get the facts wrong and should only be used for pure opinions like "their best album in the 90s" to be safe. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

What facts are supposedly wrong? isento (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Didn't enjoy his memoir, either. Caro7200 (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Caro7200: Another editor Isento has been adding Christgau's reviews in articles and even got his articles in good article status, I think he knows about Christgau then everybody else. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I add them as well, always have. I like him a lot, aside from a portion of his HM reviews and his memoir. Christgau, Trouser Press, The Source, and Spin were the big four that introduced me to stuff in the '90s. Caro7200 (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I wrote an entire section explaining Christgau's rationale behind the grade format. This, and the idea of reducing an album to a single line, speaks for itself as to how he values said album. And in response to anyone who takes issue with the overall brevity of his reviews, I will quote David M. Handelman in The Harvard Crimson:

"He explains himself in a few sentences. There's none of the tortured delving into non existent souls. He trashes trash, and embraces fun, genius, and things between. I totally sympathize with the capsule summary format, and prefer it when writing. It's often ludicrous to spend any longer on an album, and how many people read beyond the good/bad label?"

isento (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Re-recorded albums

The issue is in regards to instances when a band re-records the material from an earlier album for a brand new release. My belief is that such material constitutes a completely separate album and thus a completely new article should be created, rather than merely having that material added to the previous album's article. A perfect example would be the 1983 album Suicidal Tendencies, which the band re-recorded as a new album called Still Cyco After All These Years several years later. The article in question right now is a 2009 album entitled Mike Tramp & The Rock 'N' Roll Circuz; the songs from that album were re-recorded this year and issued as a brand new album called Second Time Around. Rather than adding all the material regarding the new album to the original album's article, should a new article be created instead? SolarFlash^Discussion 23:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Happy Families and Happy Families Too... fall into this category as well. I guess they are entirely separate albums, with separate release dates, separate critical reviews, and separate charting... Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you have to handle it like one does when deciding whether or not to split off a single/song article from an album article - it all comes down to the sourcing and whether or not there’s anything additional to be said. If it’s a radical reworking and receives lots of reviews noting a difference in content and quality, yes, split it. If it’s a 1:1 recreation and it’s just a bunch of journalists noting that over and over again, then definitely not, just create a subsection and a redirect to said subsection. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that's probably the best option in this instance. Just from a quick google search I'm pretty sure notability is going to be an issue with a standalone article. I went ahead and created a redirect to the relevant subsection of the original album's article. Hopefully that'll keep everyone happy. Cheers. SolarFlash^Discussion 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps if the new material is released under a completely different title then yes a new article makes sense. However, if it was just re-released with a new cover or called something like Album Name (2020) then it should just be a section. There are some distinct differences - we have the same issue with re-releases too. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's one where the article combines... Caro7200 (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

With P.O.D., they did an acoustic "covers" album of select songs from their previous recordings. SoCal Sessions is, in my opinion, a studio album, and not a compilation because the material is new and not collected (with one or two new songs). This is a slightly different than what is being discussed here, but I wanted to raise it as similar issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

PopMatters rating

Has PopMatters removed their ratings from their reviews recently. I go to a review page on PopMatters and can't seem to find the rating on the page--Majash2020 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been puzzled by the fact that sometimes an album has a rating on an aggregator like Metacritic, but then you go to the actual review on PopMatters, and there's no rating there. It's also the case that sometimes an earlier archived version of an album review has a rating, but the current page for the review doesn't. Richard3120 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Majash2020, That's really annoying when websites remove ratings off their reviews, Entertainment Weekly and Fact have this similar problem too. My advice is to find an archive page with the ratings still on it, like this. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick update on this; oddly enough albums do actually still seem to be rated by the site, but the ratings aren't being displayed visually for some reason – an album's rating can be found by viewing the source code of its review page (the numerical rating is enclosed within the tag <div class="custom-field-article-rating">). Not sure what the protocol would be for citing something like this, however. Holiday56 (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Spin-off articles for (highly notable) reissues

With Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, I'm thinking a separate article might be in order for the 50th Anniversary Edition box sets – major commercial success, the surviving band members participated in promotion, and it didn't get overlooked by the critics either. A spin-off would be consistent with The Layla Sessions: 20th Anniversary Edition, The Pet Sounds Sessions and possibly others. The Pepper article is already fit to burst ... but thought it might be an idea to check here: Is this what we're doing, or are those rare examples something that shouldn't be in place, and therefore shouldn't be furthered with another spin-off? JG66 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would say reissues should be covered in the original article, but if the coverage grows too large then definitely separate it. We did that with OKNOTOK. Popcornfud (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks – I knew I'd seen one or two more. Perhaps a U2 album, not sure. JG66 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur. isento (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization of band names

I'm not sure WikiProject Musicians gets much traffic, so I am cross-posting this link here because the thread is regarding band names and will affect album and song articles... the issue is the capitalization or not of prepositions and articles in band names: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Capitalization of band names. Richard3120 (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Tom Hull

Hello. Is Tom Hull (his work, site, whatever) a reliable source? If so, how should he be mentioned in text and in the album reviews box (have seen his name show up recently). I confess that I only know him from his work on Christgau's site. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caro7200 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Caro7200: what work site and reliable to which end? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for signing...I believe Tom Hull is primarily a jazz critic. I know his name from Robert Christgau's site; I think he does site maintenance. He also has his own site. He perhaps writes/wrote for Downbeat and The Penguin Jazz Guide, but I've seen his name used in album review boxes, like Christgau's is. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't have a strong opinion about it. Just wondering if editors think he is "known enough" to be referenced by name in the same manner that, for example, Robert Christgau is, especially in the album reviews box. Caro7200 (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

He didn't contribute to The Penguin Jazz Guide. I can't find any contributions to DownBeat in the last 10 years either, although he is listed as someone who is part of their annual critics' poll. The main barrier is that Hull doesn't have his own Wikipedia article, so it's difficult to claim that he should be given special status. But I'd happily remove Christgau's usually perfunctory 'reviews' from the album ratings box... EddieHugh (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I see, thanks, I should have maybe linked to this page. He's been published in many RS, but perhaps his work shouldn't be referenced just to his name. For example. Caro7200 (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

As explained by the paragraph redirected from Tom Hull (critic), he was a longtime Village Voice critic, under Christgau's editorship in the '70s-'80s. His other journalistic credentials are mentioned in this RockCritics.com interview, which is cited in that paragraph. Christgau recommends him for jazz reviews. For jazz album articles that do not have the luxury of higher-profile publications to cite all 10 ratings for – which looks like most of them – his seem fine to me. And, @EddieHugh:, unfortunately the more verbose, pretentious, self-indulgent critical stylings of such publications like Pitchfork are usually not available to cite either. isento (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Another credential, in The New Rolling Stone Album Guide (2004): Tom Hull (T.H.) writes about philosophy and music on his websites TerminalZone.net, NotesOnEverydayLife.com, and TomHull.com, as well as for The Village Voice and Seattle Weekly. ([8]) isento (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

His article has been created --> Tom Hull (critic). isento (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Help w/ title of article: Now That's What I Call Drag Music...

I've working on this article about an album, but I'm finding different titles. Most of the confusion is around "Vol .1" vs. "Vol. 1". In short, I can't tell if ".1" is intentional and intended to be humorous, or if this is an error displayed by multiple outlets, including the Apple Store and Spotify. Can any editors help determine the best page title, or have editors encountered an error/confusing title like this before? Any thoughts at Talk:Now That's What I Call Drag Music, Vol. 1 are appreciated. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Business Insider and Insider Inc.

Can these websites Business Insider and Insider Inc. be classified as unreliable sources or not? Because they are not on WP:ALBUMSOURCE, just wandering if we should start a discussion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The list generally focuses more on music-centric sites, so that may be why it’s not listed. Any reason you seem to be defaulting to unreliable? The names a bit generic, so I could be mistaken, but I believe they’re a professional business publication. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'm not saying these websites should be added in the list, I just wandering it is okay to use these websites as reliable sources. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliable is determined by purpose. I don't think those publications would be reliable for determining specific genre, but would be reliable for sales and marketing of an album. What were you thinking of using it for? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: In the article After Hours, an IP add the website Insider Inc. in the accolades section here. I have reverted that edit because I don't see the website being used in album-related articles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Good call. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of ReverbNation

I am hardly confused on whether ReverbNation is a reliable source for any article. I've tried searching a lot to see if it has been mentioned anywhere else before the RFC was made (I looked on WP:NOTRSMUSIC and WP:ELP), but I found nothing. Koridas ^talk? 22:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Evidence

I personally think that ReverbNation is not a reliable source for the following reasons

1. The website doesn't claim where they get their biographies for the artists, or they are primarily sourced (see the page for Winger, which literally cites the website of the band)
2. They miss information throughout almost every page. (Just like the Elvis Presley one, which has almost no information related to the artist). This would possibly be biased, which would prove it's unreliability
3. It possibly may be spam. It has links for pricing and opportunities for musicians, which obviously would break Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources.
4. It is meant for the website to be a site for musicians to get communicate, making it a social media site.

• Unreliable: I don't think you needed an RfC for this one, you could have just asked the question here, because I think this is going to be a no-brainer... it's a publicity website where artists upload their own information, so basically there's nothing independent about it. Richard3120 (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable per above. It has come up in the past, so it would be good to add to WP:NOTRSMUSIC. Sergecross73 msg me 01:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ones to Watch

Hi. Could Ones to Watch be added to the sources list? Its already referenced in many articles, and is independent and neutral as far as I'm aware. HeyitsBen ^talk 15:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it's probably reliable. SolarFlash^Discussion 01:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Lol, are you kidding? The website is published by Live Nation Entertainment – a corporate concert marketer and artist manager – and the reviews read like press releases. At the very least, not reliable as a review source. isento (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with Isento... it's certainly not independent, and its very title indicates that it promotes up and coming acts. It might be okay to use for factual information, such as tour dates, but I wouldn't consider any reviews that it posts to be impartial. Richard3120 (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with Isento and Richard3120, mainly because it is bias towards the artists that are in the relm of Live Nation, however it can be used for tour dates and other kind of promotion in that vein, but not reviews. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

allaccess.com

Hi, there is a Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion about this music website WP:RSN#allaccess.com, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Tom Hull for WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE list

Tom Hull (critic) (or rather his website, and by extension, blog) was brought up for discussion above, but inconclusively, which spurred me to create his article. I believe it now reflects his credentials convincingly enough. So I am formally proposing his addition to the reliable sources list, mainly for ratings/reviews - he has a focus on jazz albums. Thoughts? isento (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I brought this up earlier, so I want to acknowledge that I've read this. Do you suggest using Hull's grades in the album ratings box? For example: he gave Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain an A+, but I don't see any text associated with that grade--is there any? (Not that that album needs any more reviews...) Or just jazz reviews with text? Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

There is some commentary about the original album in his column reviewing Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain: LA's Desert Origins (from his "Recycled Goods" columns which appear to have been published for a minor publication, Static Multimedia). But, apart from album articles that are sufficient in reviews and scores from more notable reviewers, yes, I believe his grades should be allowed in ratings boxes – he has been a published critic, albeit a minor one. But choosing which review source is more notable than another is a matter of editorial discretion. I definitely recommend his reviews (with text) from his weekly blog, which focus on jazz albums, be considered reliable. isento (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I dont generally like adding self-published sources, but reading up on him in his article, if we allow it for anyone, he does seem like the type who would be the exception. Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any indication of editorial oversight at all. The only thing separating Tom Hull from a kid with a blog is some writing he did decades ago. SolarFlash^Discussion 17:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It would not be realistic for some kid with a blog to have written anything "decades ago", so that is not an apt comparison. And self-published blogs don't have editorial oversight, genius. But… According to WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Hull is one of 150 professional critics to be polled for DownBeat magazine's annual international critics poll, and he has voted in this poll each year since 2011. His last known published columns ran from 2003 to 2013, one in a webzine with editorial oversight (Static Multimedia) and another in prominent national newspaper (The Village Voice). He contributed artist entries to The New Rolling Stone Album Guide, whose presence in album articles here is nearly ubiquitous. His reviews have been recognized and validated by reliable sources - NPR Music, RockCritics.com, Robert Christgau, to name a few - DownBeat's publication of their poll also credits tomhull.com as the critic's associated publication. And yes, decades prior to all this, he wrote for the Voice during rock criticism's golden era. Now, does anyone have an informed opinion to offer? isento (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, pretty unbelievable that someone asking volunteers for input would take that tone. Some people never learn it seems. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't help but feel he was offhandedly dismissing the source out of spite, for either anything Christgau-related, or for me given our history. Regardless, his comment read as uninformed. I really hope a few rude suggestions like "genius" wouldn't have offended someone who's anti-PC... isento (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

[Edit conflict with the above] Editorial oversight isn't always needed for blogs: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", WP:BLOGS. It probably comes down to personal judgement: looking at what they've produced, I think, 'Robert Christgau – music critic', 'Marc Myers – music critic', but 'Tom Hull – music critic'? I still haven't decided. I'm happy to use things that were published in a RS and are now reproduced on his website. The rest... I'll go with whatever the consensus here becomes. EddieHugh (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@isento: You are warm and charming as always. Your perpetual lack of civility sure isn't going to help the project. Grow the hell up, kid. SolarFlash^Discussion 23:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Your apparent absence of competence and objectivity will do more to hurt the project. isento (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey man, go ahead and ruin what's left of your reputation, I don't care. I think it's hilarious to watch you self destruct like this. SolarFlash^Discussion 06:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty disturbing if you really believe that. isento (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm just interested in trying to get an expert self-published source recognized as a credible and useful source. You can worry about your reputation. isento (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable - lack of the traditional reliable source requirements. (Editorial oversight, editorial policy, history fit fact checking, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The above comment appears to be written out of spite. Here are the facts: isento (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hull is one of 150 professional critics to be polled for DownBeat magazine's annual international critics poll, and he has voted in this poll each year since 2011. His last known published columns ran from 2003 to 2013, one in a webzine with editorial oversight (Static Multimedia) and another in prominent national newspaper (The Village Voice). He contributed artist entries to The New Rolling Stone Album Guide, whose presence in album articles here is nearly ubiquitous. His reviews have been recognized and validated by reliable sources - NPR Music, RockCritics.com, Robert Christgau, to name a few - DownBeat's publication of their poll also credits tomhull.com as the critic's associated publication. And yes, decades prior to all this, he wrote for the Voice during rock criticism's golden era. According to WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." His work in the relevant field establishes his expertise in this field and has been previously published by reliable, independent publications. isento (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Isento: I don't understand your aggression here, but sadly this does seem to be standard behaviour for you. You asked for thoughts from other editors and I offered my opinion, being a member of this project and all. Attacking people after asking for opinions isn't what I'd call rational behaviour, my friend. SolarFlash^Discussion 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You are way too sensitive, or perhaps this accusation of incivility (like in your past dealing with me) is just another ploy to undermine the validity of my argument. I indirectly and reasonably suggested you had a uninformed and thoughtless opinion, given you compared a veteran music critic to "some kid with a blog". You are also hypocritical, given your far more aggressive tone toward me before. So I am your "friend," like you are a "genius", huh? isento (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for bringing your past temper tantrum up, I remember you now. I'm too sensitive you say? As your earlier tantrum continued you were so sensitive that you ultimately crawled away in utter defeat claiming you were "ganged up on by close-knit editors", with the vow to "reconsider my participation" on Wikipedia going forward. You sulked away after other editors (i.e. not myself) wrote you off as a "net negative" who should be best handled via an indefinite ban. I hope everyone who is part of this project reads that discussion to see exactly what User:Isento is all about. We had all hoped we were rid of the constant trouble that follows you everywhere, but unfortunately for the entire project you failed to follow through on your vow to ride off into the sunset and here we are yet again dealing with your immaturity and anger issues. I would implore you yet again to grow up, but we all know that's not gonna happen. SolarFlash^Discussion 19:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not at all what transpired, and I made no such vow - you're behaving like a slanderous windbag, calling me a brat and a troll, and embarrassing yourself dedicating so much time and energy to ridiculing me. But I do see you explicitly stated, twice, yesterday that you are leaving this project ([9], [10]). So why are you still here? Can you dedicate this much effort into discussing the content? If not, please stop pinging me. isento (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Fully support his published work, just not his self-published work. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Based on what reasoning? Because since you originally supported Hull as an expert-source exception, you've backtracked, seemingly ignored the concept of a self-published expert source, and the only thing you've thoughtfully explained since then is your shared distaste for me. isento (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand – per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Hull satisfies this criterion, and by definition an SPS or blog does often lack editorial oversight. I wouldn't use him too often if at all, personally, but I don't see how he can be deemed unreliable given what WP:SPS allows for. JG66 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Why would you avoid using him like that? Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't say I'd avoid using him, just it's quite unlikely that I would. I work almost exclusively on rock-ish albums from the 1960s, mainly the Beatles, where one's swamped for sources in all areas of the subject's coverage. (No exaggeration: books about the books about the band/album, academic treatises on the album's impact and critical reception, and about the impact the critical reception had on critical reception/rock criticism generally ...) So, at the risk of sounding very elitist, I'm not going to need tomhull.com when working on those articles, with that amount of coverage to choose from. I often find I don't need (more) commentary from Robert Christgau and Charles Shaar Murray either, nor mention of an album's ranking in a particular critics' poll or appearance in a book like 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die, because we can afford to be ultra discerning: everyone has written about the album, repeatedly; every best-albums poll includes it, etc. But if I was working on, say, ex-Beatle side projects and their collaborations with Ravi Shankar, John Tavener and the like, I could well be on the hunt for more reviews and I'd be grateful for something from Hull or anyone else. Heck, I'd even check out Sputnikmusic. And again, the question is whether he satisfies the criterion outlined at WP:SPS. I think there's a very good case to say he does. JG66 (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Didn’t mean to misrepresent your stance, I was just trying to understand that “ I wouldn't use him too often if at all, personally” bit. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• No worries. I appreciate it could have been taken as a putdown ... JG66 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few applications of Hull's content in jazz album articles relatively lacking in critical commentary: [11], [12]. isento (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• This one appears quite hotly debated, but if it's still open, I don't have anything new to discuss, but support the reasoning of JG66 and don't see why it can't be used. Although I'd prefer others be used if there's a swath of other good options available than his self-published work. dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

PureMzine

Hello. I was wondering if anyone could tell me if PureMzine is a reliable source? It is a printed magazine and the editor-in-chief is Trev Padraig, they also have other contributor staff, which is usually the same. However I can't find work in other publications related to them. If it turns out to be reliable could it be added to the sources list? There are several articles in wiki with interviews from them and reviews as well, I will leave an article as an example of their prose Green Day. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to say. The only editor seems to be Dave Simpson as per https://www.puremzine.com/author/pureds/ . There's no about page and without knowing Simpson's credentials, I can only say that the author appears to be prolific. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:I was able to find this self-writen bio, not sure if it helps. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It’s a point-for that he’s a college educated writer...but that appears to be his only real credential, which is a pretty major point against if he’s the only editor. I’d probably have to say unreliable unless anything else is discovered. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Serge on this one. What makes you think he's prolific, Walter? dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The number of posts he's made to that site. I see no other contributor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The website has older post by other staff, but it seems they don't write as much as Simpson. Here is one example Review. If you go to the second page of this link here on the down left corner it is the team of contributors of the website, I google them on linkedin Holian has written for other magazines and has her own published book, while Dunne is finishing his degree in music journalism. The others are a mistery. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

A Seat at the Table

Can somebody check the songwriting credits for A Seat at the Table, please? I am told that they are per album booklet which shows primarily Knowles, whereas ASCAP lists numerous others for the tracks. I also note that Spotify shows the additional songwriters. Besides the difference, advice how to proceed would be appreciated, should both be listed and explained, or do we just take primary source (the booklet?) or ASCAP? Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I would use the album liner notes and add ASCAP as efns for differences. To clarify, the introduction could be expanded to something like "All tracks are written by Solange Knowles, except where noted. Details are taken from the [specific edition] album liner notes; other sources may list different information". Also, the consensus during the recent RfC was "Do not include [in infoboxes] those listed as executive, co-, additional, vocal, etc., producers, unless a reliable source identifies their contribution as substantially the same as the main producers". I wonder if all of these often very long "Producer" and "Personnel" lists are actually encyclopedic (mastering assistance? – make mine pepperoni). With all the record charts and special edition extra track listings, articles are becoming overburdened with lists and tables and appear indiscriminate collections of information. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The album liner notes definitely only list Knowles as the sole writer of the album, except for the songs featuring Lil Wayne and the Dream, and the interludes, which have no writing credits. I can't find the ASCAP credits, but I would imagine the additional writers are the producers of the tracks. This is the sometimes grey area of R&B and hip hop records where there's a debate about how much input the producers have in creating the beats and backing track of the songs, and whether this constitutes a co-writing credit. Richard3120 (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120 FWIW, Here's the ASCAP link for one of the songs, Weary which clearly lists 4 songwriters. ASCAP not only lists, but makes payments to the songwriters listed. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

ISWC lists a lot of songs under "KNOWLES SOLANGE" with co-writers:[13] I stopped at "Borderline",[14] but others from the album may be there also. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Richhoncho, the co-writers on that song are indeed the two producers, and more interestingly, the recording engineer. And yes, ASCAP does make royalty payments to them all. It does make you wonder whether "written by" on the album's liner notes means that Solange came up with the lyrics and basic outline of the song, and then her producers and engineer then get a writing credit for helping shape the song in the studio. Richard3120 (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120 We will never know how individual songs are created and who contributed which part, but as far as I am concerned, if Solange Knowles is happy to add songwriters at ASCAP, then who am I to disagree? In practice the producers possibly supplied some form of backing track, possibly with some melodic/lyrical ideas and leave it to artists to work as they see fit. As far as marketing booklets are concerned, if editors want to add the details fine, but it is a primary source and should be taken with a pinch of salt - after all this album, like every other album is product for sale - any means to sell the product, otherwise there is no point. I also think that in many cases the word 'songwriter' is used in lieu of 'lyricist' which then begins to make some sense. NB Not having a go at any artist here. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

ASCAP often lists songs that haven't been released and alternative variations of songs too. I would be careful about listening ascap over album booklet credits. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Lil-unique1 That's because ASCAP members can register unreleased songs with ASCAP. OTOH If a song is listed as released by Solange Knowles and the titles match, I think we are on fairly safe territory - the question is quite simple, if I have written a song on my own, would I let anybody else get their hands on my songwriter royalties? --Richhoncho (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Richhoncho, you're probably right actually. Just having a quick look at Universal Music Publishing, and for Rise, they clearly list other contributors. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

But that's exactly why there's a Personnel section for albums. It's safe to assume that "writer" on these sites is synonymous with "worked on the song". I'm not sure a lot of these sites have other options to list these people as, whether or not they actually "wrote" the song. Troy "R8dio" Johnson is credited as Associate Producer for the entire album, so he is going to be listed in ASCAP and Umusicpub as a co-writer for every song despite only co-writing two of them. People like this should be credited in the Personnel section accordingly, not the track listing. --Calhounmuse (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Personnel sections are not for writers but people who contributed in technical ways to the album. That's why we don't list lawyers, road managers, and others in the section. Songwriters are listed next to the song itself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and Troy "R8dio" Johnson is not a writer for every song despite being listed as one on ASCAP. He was an Associate Producer for every song, like I said. So, I'm glad you agree. He shouldn't be credited as a writer anywhere (aside from the two songs he actually co-wrote).--Calhounmuse (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not what Walter Görlitz said. BTW, Why is Troy Johnson receiving songwriter royalties he did not write and how do you get your 'information?'--Richhoncho (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I wrote something. I did not say anything. Associate producers can be listed in a personnel section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I get my information from the album booklet. Where it clearly states he was an Associate Producer for every track. And it was my mistake, he is never listed as a songwriter; on the two songs he is listed as a producer. So it's safe to assume that when ASCAP lists someone as a songwriter, it just means they worked on the song in a meaningful way, whether they co-wrote it or not.--Calhounmuse (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Calhounmuse It is all rather pointless continuing this, I think (anybody else want to comment?) that the consensus is that if there are differences then it is OK to list the differences with references and let readers make up their minds. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Graham Reid's Elsewhere for WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE list

The Tom Hull for WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE list discussion got me thinking of the NZ website Elsewhere. I combined creator and publication in the one article, years ago: Graham Reid (journalist). As the article demonstrates, Reid's a highly respected journalist and critic, for the The New Zealand Herald and New Zealand Listener, among others. His website Elsewhere has received attention in its own right – Rock's Backpages carries some of his pieces, and I've read somewhere (though I confess it's not in the article, and I can't find it now) that his annual list of best albums for Independent Music New Zealand is considered influential in itself. I'm not too familiar with his reviews for Elsewhere but have found his articles on old songs and albums very useful. Some interviews appear there also – eg, with Ravi Shankar and filmmaker Joe Massot, which first got my interest and, I'd say, adds weight to the quality of the site.

What do others think? Obviously, we're back to WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." JG66 (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m really not crazy about adding these self-published sources to the list. If you need it to source some odd tibit for an old Jazz album or something, sure, whatever, as long as its not controversial. But the more we have on there - showing it’s a preferred source of sorts - the more issues we’re going to have with people proposing stuff like “StankJohn64” a Youtuber who is definitely a professional in his field because he’s got 100 subscribers and has been listening to punk rock records since all the way back in 2015!” Of course that’s an exaggeration, but the problem is that there’s a lot of gray area between amateur Youtuber and Christgau. (Your Piero Scaruffi, Anthony Fantanos, etc etc that the community argues about at times.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Of course that’s an exaggeration ..." Yes, quite.

See, as above, I don't get what's going on here. Two or three days back, Serge, your initial response re Tom Hull was "I dont generally like adding self-published sources, but reading up on him in his article, if we allow it for anyone, he does seem like the type who would be the exception." You then struck everything from "but reading up on him in his article" on when someone else weighed in against including Hull. But from reading up on Graham Reid at his article, does he not seem to you like the type who we'd recognise as an exception if Tom Hull ever was (and he was on 20 June at 15:51)? There can be no doubt, surely, that he qualifies as an "expert"; his work has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, and I've given some idea of his website receiving recognition in its own right. So, you struck your initial comment with regard to tomhull.com, but are you saying that the whole idea of making an exception for anyone is effectively struck out also? JG66 (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Both you and Isento make it sound like I had some sort of massive reversal in my stance. Guys, I literally started with “I don’t like adding self-published sources to the list”. Sergecross73 msg me 02:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

No, what you literally started with was: "I dont generally like adding self-published sources, but reading up on him in his article, if we allow it for anyone, he does seem like the type who would be the exception." That's what I'm questioning. And to suggest that Graham Reid – any veteran professional journalist – might be lost in some grey area is ridiculous. He's right at the top of his profession. His name doesn't even belong in the same sentence as Piero Scaruffi, Anthony Fantanos or any YouTuber. JG66 (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. So, to recap: If we allow for exceptions, they’d be possible exceptions. But I don’t personally support making that exception, is what I’m saying. As I mentioned, if you need him to source some odd thing, sure. But generally when sources are added to the list, there are editors that take it and force it into every damn reception section they can find, and I don’t believe it should be used like that. SPS stuff should be used sparingly. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Fascinating. JG66 (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

In today's era of traditional journalism's decline, there is good reason we are seeing more old-school journalists self-publishing - Christgau on Substack, Graham here - so we should be a little more accommodating. Graham's journalistic credentials are far more impressive than Hull's - he was an editor of a magazine, he's won awards in the field, he's been a lecturer, his site has been referenced in arts-related books. His website appears to function more like a webzine, even with his interviews of major artists, but without news reports. But we are not citing these guys for the news, but for opinions. And given his experience, it is safe to say Graham's opinions will be more informed - by journalistic expertise, by historical perspective - than some of-the-moment trendy blogger. And given the necessity in articles for expert-opinion content in the spirit of WP:SUBJECTIVE, I believe his website will generally be useful for citing such opinions. isento (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• DannyMusicEditor: Given your comments in the above discussion about tomhull.com, would you support using Elsewhere in the same way, then? Thanks, JG66 (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

If it passes the SPS policy, which it looks like it does, it looks good to me. Again, I bet there are better alternatives in many cases, but wouldn't want this forbidden. dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Latvia Certifications using DirectUpload.Net

Hello, does anyone know if this source could be reliable? I saw it in several articles, including LaMPA and FA albums, like Thriller. I tried to find a better source, but i couldn't. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd say I would avoid. Directupload is a site that allows you to upload images and files. The image you've linked to in your example was uploaded by an anonymous user although it does cite IFPI-affiliated source. It does say that copies are available in the Lampa Archives in Riga, Latvia however the annotations are concerning. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

File-sharing sites shouldn’t be used as sources. Anyone can upload anything, and they can contain viruses or illegal content. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. So, I think shouldn't be a problem if we delete this source in multiple articles (LaMPA, Thriller etc), right? As I said, I tried to find a better source, even IFPI or in Google Books, but I didn't see anything. Thanks, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Have a Nice Day, etc.

Curious how these album series have been handled in the past. An editor proposed V. 25 for deletion--reached out to BarrelProof to ask if the articles might be handled in a more efficient way, as, unlike V.25, some in the series don't even have AllMusic reviews. Now is a different sort of thing, but wondering if other series have come up...there's lots of Rhino stuff...Pebbles, maybe... Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, even the individual Now albums for the UK series have been redirected to the main article... they may all make no. 1 on the UK Compilations chart and be certified platinum, but there's almost nothing else you can say about each individual entry, and most reliable sources refer to the series as a whole and not each album. We've also had plenty of series of dance music albums redirected from individual entries to general article for the whole series, such as Euphoria and the series of compilations linked to the big clubs such as Ministry of Sound and Gatecrasher.

Personally I believe that almost no compilation album is individually notable (Nuggets is an obvious exception), but at least the Now albums and the dance mix albums I mentioned above contain recent releases and may be reviewed in various magazines. But I don't know what you can say about Have a Nice Day or UK equivalents like The Best... Album in the World...Ever! series... the songs on these compilations are usually unrelated except for year or genre, and are years or decades old, so they're pointless to review as the songs are already familiar. Richard3120 (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, guess it depends on the series, and how many volumes there are. The Spin Alternative Record Guide reviewed the Rhino disco and new waves comps, as well as Pebbles. The 1992 Rolling Stone Album Guide reviewed the first ten or so Have a Nice Day volumes. Christgau, EW, Billboard, others would review random entries of series. It's probably a truism that earlier volumes have more coverage. It seems like later Have a Nice Day entries, where there isn't even an AllMusic staff review (or if an AllMusic review is the only RS), can be redirected... Caro7200 (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Caro7200: the first half dozen or so Now albums in the UK were definitely reviewed in British music magazines at the time, because they were a real novelty and changed the face of compilations... previously "hits" compilations had always been released by budget release specialists like K-Tel and Ronco, and some of them had reached number one, but they had always been a case of three really big hits and then lots of records that struggled to no. 32 or whatever, it depended on what they were able to license for the compilation. The Now compilations broke the mould because it was the first time one of these "recent chart hits" records had been marketed and released by major record labels (Virgin and EMI in this case, later in partnership with Phonogram), and of course they had access to all the biggest names on their labels. But after a while, what can a reviewer say about a new Now release that's different to the previous ones? For the Have a Nice Day series, it's really "here's a bunch of songs that were played a lot on the radio twenty years ago - you'll already know if you like them or not". Richard3120 (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

CAT:NN

CAT:NN has a crazy backlog - almost 12 years and over 11,000 of these are on music, many on albums. Can you please help? Here's the direct link: [15]. Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That is because anyone who AfDs a non-notable album or song is inevitably shot down by people who claim that WP:NALBUM and WP:NSONG say something that they do not say. The word "may" currently means nothing in those guidelines. We are left in limbo. I tilted at this windmill a few years ago, attempting to apply Wikipedia's basic notability criteria to songs, but those changes did not survive. As it stands, the consensus interpretation of WP:NSONG means that songs do not have to be notable to have an article.

Picking three pages at random from the category linked above, I get After Dark (Le Tigre song) (no coverage in reliable sources; article is ten years old), Vanilla Ninja (album) (unsourced; article is 15 years old), and The View from the Bottom (actually has sources, many of which mention the album; not sure if this counts as "significant coverage" per WP:GNG). Try nominating any of these for deletion or redirection, and see what happens. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

And yet there are attempts to create more because they appeared on a chart 60+ years ago. Many editors apparently ignore the rest of NSONG & NALBUM: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". —Ojorojo (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been adding references to album stubs and short articles for the past year, as well as slightly expanding them (don't care as much about artists/songs). It's slow going. There are, most likely, thousands of music articles that can be deleted. But I've also been surprised by how many album articles exist that are either not referenced or poorly referenced, but where six, seven, eight refs from RS can be found. I think it's also problematic that editors can place notability tags on articles without actually specifying why they question the subject's notability; I think there are a lot of cases where other tags--unreferenced, needs more references--would be more appropriate. Caro7200 (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Occasionally I come across albums I consider non-notable and redirect them or put them up for AfD, but it's very slow going. The biggest problems are non-English language albums from many years ago – the Vanilla Ninja album that Jonesey95 mentions above is a perfect example. I don't think there was an official Estonian chart in 2003, so how can we check the popularity and supposed platinum certification of this album? Without proof at this moment in time, it will probably have to be redirected, but finding these examples among tens of thousands of album articles is very slow going. I have been going through the assessment table at WP:ALBUMS whenever I have time, with the aim of trying to get every album on there assessed for class and importance – my idea is that once every album has a rough classification, those which are stub-class/low-importance should be where you are going to find the likeliest candidates for deletion. I estimate it's going to take me at least five years to clear the backlog, though. Richard3120 (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: I can't just single out that editor... the recent proliferation of specialist charts in many countries means editors are creating articles for songs which have never charted on the Hot 100, UK Singles chart or any of the main country charts. As noted by you and Jonesey95, the number of song articles is completely out of control, and I would not be surprised if as many as 50% of them are little more than a table of their entries on Country or R&B charts, with almost no text. Edit: it also doesn't help that streaming has now helped to give almost every single released in the last five years a gold or platinum certification, even without charting. There is at least one song which has been certified platinum in the UK despite never being released as a single in that country, and many singles in the US certified gold or platinum without every reaching the Hot 100. Editors also use this as a justification for a song article, as passing the criterion "The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country". Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to single anyone out either, but hope to avoid the mass creations of superstubs based on chart or discography-type idexes, which have occurred in the past. Perhaps the wording of NSONGS could be improved. Some editors seem to focus on the three factors (charts, awards, covers), but miss the preceding "suggest that a song or single may be notable enough". Somehow, the General notability guideline idea of "significant coverage" needs more emphasis (" addresses the topic directly and in detail ... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention"). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more... my examples above were to show that the guidelines for WP:NALBUM/WP:NSONG need an overhaul, as charting on some form of specialist chart and gold certifications are far easier to obtain these days than they were five years ago, and no longer guaranteed evidence of notability. Another criterion that gets misinterpreted is "The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network"... I've seen this used if an artist is interviewed on a radio show, or they play a couple of session tracks in the studio, or for DJs being invited to do a one-hour mix on a dance music show. And a lot of the announcements of releases or tours, even on reliable sources like Billboard and Rolling Stone, are nothing more than press releases uploaded by the artist themselves, so although the source may be a respectable one, the article isn't independent. Basically, those guidelines were written fifteen years ago, and they haven't kept up with the times and how music distribution and online journalism has changed completely. Richard3120 (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see some clarity in the text of NSONGS to point out that the elements listed that may make a song notable are NOT criteria that says the song is notable (and should not be solely used as arguments in AfD discussions). Richard, You are I are the biggest contributors to bringing down the unassessed article count for albums, along with countless others who have come and gone doing their part, but it will take a while. I began in earnest at the beginning of 2013 when there were over 40,000 unassessed-class articles, and we've got it down to nearly 16,000 (and there have had to be thousands of new album articles to patrol during that time as well). I sure I've got bolder over the years to simply redirect non-notable albums or stubs that have so little to say that the mention of it in the artist's article suffices. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed you are, and thank you for your contributions. I agree about the lack of clarity in WP:NSONGS; as Jonesey95 points out above, too many editors use "it passes criterion X of WPNSONGS, therefore it's notable" in AfD discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Studio albums by year and Category:(year) studio albums

Just a heads up that a new editor has created the above category and sub-categories... they are currently all empty, but presumably their idea is to move/copy every article for studio albums from Category:(year) albums to Category:(year) studio albums. This should be addressed promptly, because it will affect the whole categorization system of this project. Richard3120 (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

If it does not already exist, can we make a page to assess song, album, and band pages? I often find music pages that look more like advertising that encyclopediac content and I want to be able to systematically review those pages to identify the most severe problems that need to be addressed.

For example, I randomly came across: this version of Scourge of the Enthroned. It came up when I hit Special:Random.

This is how I approached it:

I see nothing glaringly off about it.

The refs are all bare refs, but I don't see things like YouTube, iTunes, or Amazon that are red flags of WP:PROMO. Nothing in the refs screams out as unacceptable.

I notice immediately it has sources for professional ratings--a good sign. But at the same time, I wonder if all of those sources count. I see that Blabbermouth is on WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, but Loudersound, Banger TV, and whiplash are not. The quotations appear to have been assembled by a professional music writer hyping the piece, but without looking at the reviews, it's not clear that the choice of quotes violates WP:NPOV.

The first citation is to www.metal-archives.com, and that is likely user-generated. That's the most significant problem I note.

The charts section is all cited, and I have found that usually these kind of citations are accurate.

Personnel -- No citations at all. I see this in many music articles, and I always wonder if this is acceptable. I see IP editors coming in to change these sections, and there is always the problem that they may be vandalizing them.

I welcome thoughts on how to more systematically access these articles and address any problems. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with Loudersound – it's the umbrella website that covers the three music publications of Future plc in the UK, namely Classic Rock, Metal Hammer and Prog... all three of these magazines are reliable, with full journalistic and editorial staff, and are widely available in the UK from newsagents, or can be purchased in digital form online as well. You can tell in which of the three magazines the print version of the review can be found, because the relevant magazine's logo is in the top left corner of the web page - in this case it's Metal Hammer. I'm not familiar with the other two websites, I will have to check them out.

Metal Archives is a definite no-no – this and its sister project, the Encyclopedia Metallum, are user-generated Wikias and fail WP:USERG.

The personnel ought to be cited, but it's probably not a deal-breaker regarding the album's notability – we usually just cite it from the album's liner notes... or these days, from Tidal or another streaming website.

We have the assessment table on the main page of this project (and on other WikiProject pages), but all the pages need to be tagged and assessed manually, I think – a bot used to assess the class based on the length of the article, but I'm not sure this happens any more. Richard3120 (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Idolator and Consequence of Sound apparently are not high-quality sources

Hello. I just nominated an article for FA and the main reason it's going to be archived soon it's because a reviewer considers that both Idolator and Consequence of Sound are not high-quality sources, even though a few users have explained their reliability. This is mostly a suggestion for you to avoid using those two publications in case you want to nominate an article to FA, because no matter how much you prove their reliability, it's a lost case. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I've seen (even) AllMusic deemed non-RS by a small group of like-minded editors (not here but at RSN, I believe) and removed from an article. The mind boggles. JG66 (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve witnessed this too, both in music and other content areas, where a reviewer/participant from outside the content area is unnecessarily harsh on reliable sources. That was one of the reasons why, a few years ago, I had worked to add links to the discussions related to entries on WP:RSMUSIC and WP:NOTRSMUSIC, and creating new discussions for entries that made the lists at some point without discussion...but it was a rather tedious process with few participants adding input, so process on that kind of stopped. But generally speaking, linking to a Wikiproject consensus sometimes help persuade editors in these cases. Sergecross73 msg me 11:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, an editor at the FAC in question discounted the WikiProject consensus as irrelevant. I had pointed out how Consequence of Sound has evidence of editorial oversight and has been cited in other publications/websites, but the editor did not follow-up with that. I think it is important to have discussions on what is a high-quality source, but I was disappointed in the way the FAC discussion turned out. I just wanted to add my two cents on this issue. Aoba47 (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• That's pretty disappointing if, as you say, consensus at project level is deemed "irrelevant", because it's suggesting that everyone else's opinion means nothing, only "mine" counts. I guess you might be talking about this FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bikini Porn/archive1? I'd agree that some of those sources queried should go, and they have. I've got no experience with Idolator at all, but if Consequence of Sound is being used to state a journalist's opinion on popular music, I can't see how that's a problem. That is what the site is about, they have editorial oversight, and CoS's opinions on music do receive attention in other sources. I wonder if CoS would have received the same level of scrutiny there if those obviously unprofessional, fansite sources weren't also included when the article was nominated ... Just thinking aloud. JG66 (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Unpopular opinion, but that’s one of the reasons why I don’t even bother with the GA/FA process. I don’t want to rework my writings to a reviewer who doesn’t even know any better. Not to mention 99% of readers don’t even know what a GA/FA is, let alone place any value in it. We experienced editors place a lot more importance on it than...anyone else. Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you Serge, to some extent - I'd like to get some albums I'm interested in and have worked on to GA, but I won't lose sleep over it if I don't. And the FA process just seems exhausting and not worth the effort. I've seen more than one editor who has nominated their work for FA end up throwing in the towel, not just on the FA, but on Wikipedia completely, in exasperation. Personally my view is that there are 1200 to 1500 albums which should probably be top or high importance, and if we can get most of them to GA level (even if they don't actually earn the little green icon), then that should probably be considered a success for the project. Richard3120 (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh boy, I hear you both on the well-what-does-the-little-icon-really-mean point. I've never bothered with FA, still get encouraged to (which is very nice, obviously), and have only recently made a tentative return to GA noms. Nothing beats working with a reviewer who's able to both get in the filthy, muddy trenches of article minutiae and see the whole page from a mountaintop – which is where I get to, anyway, with an album or song article. I look in at FACs occasionally and generally follow the standards set there, adapting my approach if necessary – far more so than I'd ignore them, anyway; and the standard should be super-high, no arguments there. As a returning co-founder of WP:Beatles commented recently, nowadays the quality of GAs is more like "FA-minus", and I think there are no end of B-rated album and song articles that are "GA-minus" if not better than most articles that make GA. So if one's helping create quasi-FA-status articles, who needs the star icon and the accompanying barnstars?

If the formal FA or GA process wears down editors and sees them departing the project, it's almost in our interests to advise against nominating, because we don't want to lose people who might expand many articles but fall down over the one or two they decide to nominate. Having said that, I don't know anyone who reads anything on the Main Page and would need a featured album article to be signposted for their attention. I've always imagined most readers arrive at the album article because they want to read about the album; they get there – "Oh, it's got a gold star/green splodge above the album cover" – and read on without giving it any more thought. JG66 (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Was recently made to throw out Idolator as a source through a featured article nomination for Meghan Trainor. I kept quiet and just did it, and the nomination was still failed. I think these status' on Wikipedia are useless for different reasons. When it comes to GAs, the bar is on the floor and articles that shouldn't even exist are routinely passed. Whereas the coveted FA title is more of a popularity contest, with the community generally filled with pretentious people who want to disregard reliable sources to feel grandiose about their own featured articles. I am, of course, guilty, considering I have 33 good articles, but I'm now enlightened and understand it means nothing. Anyways, hope Paparazzzi comes back. And yes, Idolator and CoS are reliable sources and always will be.--NØ 07:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've got to disagree that with GAs "the bar is on the floor" quality-wise, Marano. It's heavily dependent on where the writer/nominator's standards are at – further to my point about how if you look in at FACs/GANs and follow the drift for the most part, you're likely to create an "FA-minus" with your GAs or a "GA-minus" with ones that sit un-nominated as Bs. I take your point, of course (just suddenly feeling, well, inadequate ... perhaps I've been deceiving myself all along!).

I do agree about FAC being "more of a popularity contest, with the community generally filled with pretentious people". That aspect was the thing that put me off FAs in the first place, back in 2012–13. It was more a case of a particular nominating editor "hosting" FACs, referring to reviewers as "delegates" and trying to turn the process into some learned online academic conference ... Egos were massaged, participants gained a mutual reason to exist, barnstars flew all over the shop. The actual articles, though, were b*llocks – biased and shallow.

There are some amazing FA writers and reviewers, let me say. And the people who have encouraged me to consider going FA over the years have obviously had positive experiences there, and I'm sure they'd make fantastic reviewers at FAC just as they are/were at GAN. JG66 (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

1973: ROCK AT THE CROSSROADS

Anyone else read this book? The author cites Wikipedia, by itself, several times, instead of the original sources...interesting. Caro7200 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

And makes a lot of use of the AllMusic staff reviews and biographies... ;) Caro7200 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually think that in this age where most music magazines/online websites have cut their journalistic staff to a minimum and employ interns to do a lot of the work, Wikipedia gets used a lot to provide their "factual" information, which Wikipedia then cites as a reliable source, creating a WP:CIRCULAR link which we're not aware of. I've looked up information for albums in "retro" magazines in their "classic albums" feature in order to improve the article, only to find wording that reads suspiciously like that already in the Wikipedia article. Richard3120 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the very same thing, more so in online sources. It's one of the reasons we need to ensure our articles follow a widely held narrative of events for old, "classic" albums, rather than overly indulging in fringe versions. JG66 (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Me as well. Working in the modern rock area, I’ve caught modern websites using my own work too. I keep away from using them, as to keep away from CIRCULAR issues, but it definitely happens. (I’m fine with it. I find it flattering.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

CRYSTAL and FUTUREALBUM

WP:FUTUREALBUM, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER appear to be about creating articles about future releases. An SPA added content about two upcoming albums on Bryn Haworth and someone reverted it because it was unsourced and did so based on CRYSTAL. So yes, the content should be sourced, and I would normally just add a {{citation needed}} for a sentence in the article, but the other editor wants it gone. How to approach? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

If its uncontroversial I'd say adding content with a {{CN}} is fine. But equally there's nothing wrong with his page as a source for now IMO. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

But his own page is hardly a secondary source, is it. Isn't is possible that it won't be released, for all sorts pf reasons? A future event isn't a fact, it's a prediction. Some folks might argue that WP:CRYSTAL could apply even when there is a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I totally understand that but using phraseology like "Haworth announced his on his website that a new album was due to be released in xxx 2020" is fine. As a notable artist, if they did not end up releasing it, it would still be note worthy to report that an album was being planned. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This should also apply to album titles as well. In this case, the album is expected to be called Peace & Understanding according to Haworth's website. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Far Out Magazine

Is Far Out Magazine considered a reliable source? Ex. this source. Thanks. – zmbro _(talk) 19:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find any "About Us", "Terms of Use" or anything that could help us determine whether they have a professional staff behind their content, so I would avoid it until it's proven reliable. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 21:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is helpful or not. But I was just reading through this talk page, and I noticed this question. It looks like based on LinkedIn that Far Out Magazine was founded in 2011 and has several employees, "four editors and over twenty five contributors". The founder and Editor-in-chief has worked at Sky, Daily Mirror, Metro, and some other UK based media outlets. --ZappoMan (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die 2018 edition

Does anyone have a copy of the 2018 edition of 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die? Would like to know the page number David Bowie's Blackstar is on. Thanks! – zmbro _(talk) 17:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Disco (Kylie Minogue album)

If anyone is interested, I've started a discussion about the above album at Talk:Kylie_Minogue#Too_early_for_Disco_album ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

MTV testi e canzoni

I have been using this as a reference, but I am not sure if it is a reliable source so thought I'd check here to see how others feel about the reliability? --K. Peake 05:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

What are you using it for, if I may ask? I mean, it's just the lyrics from a song. Richard3120 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120 I was using it to name writers of a song, is that fine? --K. Peake 14:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I would have thought it better to cite the label of the record itself, if necessary – I can see this at Discogs, and it lists three writers, not two. Not sure how notable this group or record is, though. Richard3120 (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120 This source is actually being used in relevance to a sample on the track "Follow God", though I may find something else instead now. --K. Peake 15:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand now – I'm guessing Tidal or ASCAP/BMI don't have credits for the sample? If not I'd cite the label for now and then wait for the album to see what credits they have. Richard3120 (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The Austin Chronicle

At what point did The Austin Chronicle move from a 4-star scale to a 5-star? Or was it always a 5-star, but older reviews rarely awarded higher than 4? Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that in the mid-'90s, they used a scale of 5 Hs (HHHHH), and then they moved to a 4-star scale and then a 5-star...anyone know for sure? Caro7200 (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

YouTube links in infoboxes

Hi. I've raised the question of using YouTube links in soundtrack infoboxes for films at the Film WikiProject. Any input of their use or not would be appreciated here. BOVINEBOY2008 20:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Unreleased albums and cover art

@ILIL:, @Gentlecollapse6:, who I saw both have some experience with this, and anyone else who can comment:

I've been working on Love for Sale (Bilal album) and am thinking of cover options for the infobox, but am uncertain about the fair-use implications and general appropriateness. The image that appears most often in association with this album on blogs and discographical sites is this one (Genius.com is among the more reputable sites), although there is no commentary on this - it could be a piece of fan-made art that simply became popular by association with the album's spread online. This interview by Albumism mentioning the album uses that image in a collage of other albums' official covers, so perhaps that counts as some kind of validation? Otherwise, there is no reliable commentary on the planned or leaked album's cover art like there is at Smile (Beach Boys album). A similar article, Camille (album), uses a limited LP copy as the cover, so I've also considered using one of these sleeves of a promotional LP ([16], [17]). isento (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think vinyl discs are preferable to unverified sleeve art. ili (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Studio parameter of the album's infobox (Template:Infobox album#studio)

Is the studio parameter of the album's infobox Wikipedia definition only for recording studios where a record was recorded, and not where it was overdubbed and/or mixed? "If the album was recorded in a recording studio, enter the name and location." (Template:Infobox album#studio). It does not say to include anything other than a studio in which the album was recorded. The Wikipdia page Audio mixing (recorded music) states "Before the introduction of multitrack recording, all sounds and effects that were to be part of a record were mixed at one time during a live performance. If the recorded mix wasn't satisfactory, or if one musician made a mistake, the selection had to be performed over until the desired balance and performance was obtained. With the introduction of multi-track recording, the production of a modern recording changed into one that generally involves three stages: recording, overdubbing, and mixing." Since the 1970's, record albums have been recorded in three stages: recording, overdubbing, and mixing. It was common practice to record an album in one studio, overdub in another studio and mixed in another. I would argue for the listing of every recording studio that was used in the making of the song or album. Please weigh in here. Joanne.nathan (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Not all aspects of a song should be included in an infobox. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE includes "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance ... wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". The WP practice, as reflected in the guidance, is to include the recording studio(s); other facilities where an album may have been overdubbed, mixed, mastered, etc., are for the main body of the article, such as in a "Recording" section, where they can be properly discussed and referenced. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There may be a conflict of interest here (comment by Binksternet copied from User talk:Joanne.nathan):

Perhaps I can clear this up. Joanne Nathan emailed me on June 29 about my many reversions of User:Uniquenyc who had added Unique Recording Studios in New York to a bunch of song articles but without supporting references. (Joanne and Bobby Nathan were the owners and operators of Unique.) Joanne Nathan registered her username the same day. On July 1, Uniquenyc was renamed Bobby Nathan at Uniquenyc. I described to Joanne by email how WP:SECONDARY sources were greatly preferred on Wikipedia, but primary sources could be used for simple facts. She began to re-add her recording studio to song and album articles, using a combination of secondary and primary sources. I would not classify her as "paid"; instead she has a conflict of interest, but it's not an insurmountable problem. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

copied & added by Ojorojo (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm coming to this late. I would argue that only the main studios where recording and overdubs took place should be listed. Mixing and mastering should not be listed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, added to which editors will start adding the studios where each remastered edition has been carried out... the infobox could start getting lengthy and cluttered. Richard3120 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Every studio involved in the album should be listed, from tracking to mixing. I draw the line at mastering, and at the other end I would not include songwriting sessions that don't result in recorded material. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Binksternet, all studios from tracking through mixing should be listed. Studios listed need to be verifiable, of course. ~Kvng (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• I think it should only be studios where recording and overdubbing took place. Until a few years ago, all recording info appeared in the Recording= parameter; then an editor somehow introduced Studio= and it was only a good while later that the issue was discussed and we decided to live with it. (At least, that's the way I remember it.) It's only because of that change that the question even arises now of what "Studio" means in infobox terms – the advice at the template is consistent with a purpose that never changed, at least not formally. In the same way, we have Recorded= for recording dates, but no Mixed= parameter for mixing dates. JG66 (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Binksternet. The thing is even when audio is mixed or dubbed its done in a music studio/recording studio not a mixing studio (there's no such thing as the latter). Mixing suits are often based in recording studios. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on Category:Leaked albums

This was recently created. Seems a little trivial to me since it's fairly common for albums to leak and this was really only a thing for maybe a decade in the early 21st-century. Should we have this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn’t seem like it would generally be a WP:DEFINING trait. And I think people would generally violate WP:LEAK with it too. I’m against it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. I started a discussion on the category page to address these same concerns. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The guidance at WP:LEAK merely addresses whether an article should mention the date of an album leaking. The guidance doesn't apply here and it is very unlikely to be "violated" if you apply it here anyway. If a leak is verifiable to reliable sources, then it has more than likely received coverage for how an artist or label responded to it. For historical examples, see Pitchfork's "A History of Digital Album Leaks (1993-2015)" or "Inside album leaks: how do they happen, how do we stop them, and do they even matter?" by Factmag. For a contemporary example, "Dua Lipa moves album release forward after it leaks online" (BBC) and "Dua Lipa bursts into tears as she moves her album release forward after it leaks online" (The Sun). For a phenomenon that has shaped the professional habits of prominent recording artists ([18], [19], [20]), I would say it's a pretty notable trait to consider. isento (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No one is arguing that there aren’t any notable leaks. The point, as I understood it, was that if the category was filled out correctly, virtually every non-indie album from 2000 to 2015 would have the category. Leaks were extremely common in the post-digital but pre-streaming music era. And then I feared that, if it was applied accurately like that, it would start leading to inclusion in articles, which would be LEAK violations. Sergecross73 msg me 19:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Vents magazine

Is vents magazine a reliable source for music articles? Here is the source that leads to the website: [21] The Ultimate Boss (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, on their "About Us" page, they say, not too reassuringly,

"Vents Magazine is the premier online publication for music news, entertainment, movies, and other articles online. Established in 2009, and run by a team of dedicated volunteers who love music. We also run a digital magazine, and Frame by Sound Festival."

so they're not only an online publication, they also run a digital magazine. Gosh! So many irons in the fire! And call me picky, but the middle sentence isn't even a sentence. (Besides which: "the premier"?? Please.)

I can't tell how many volunteers in their "team", or who they are, or their qualifications. But the current issue appears to consist entirely of about 25 interviews with identical patterns. ("Hi, X, and welcome to Vents! How have you been?") So, I guess it'd be reliable for verifying that "artist X told an interviewer from Vents that..."

I don't see any other content. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Is The Daily Shuffle a reliable source

Is The Daily Shuffle a reliable source? Here is the link: [22]. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The latest version of their digital mag (Issue #24 July 2020) looks much more professional than Vents above; much better layout and photos. However, it also consists almost exclusively of interviews, every one of them by the editor-in-chief.

For musical content on their site I looked at this and this, but can't say there's much sorting of details by TDS beyond reformatting the PR offerings from the artists/agents. I don't know The Daily Shuffle otherwise. Sorry if that's not much help. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Folklore and other Album Writer Credits and References Being Omitted

Hello, Everyone.

I'm writing to seek a consensus on the way writers are being unfairly treated in Album articles. I will post the following conversation to be transparent and provide a foundation to the issue and discussion.

From the Folklore Album talk page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Folklore_(Taylor_Swift_album)&action=edit&section=11 ), Prose072 (talk)

"== William Bowery and other writers (Credits) ==

(removed for clarity, SEE talk page in link provided above)

Please try again

This is massive and overwhelming. Please stop and try again, in a far more concise manner. You’re unlikely to get a consensus when you present it like this. Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Its worth noting that ASCAP often lists credits for alternative, unreleased and remixed versions of songs too. For example, "Smile (Katy Perry Song)" isn't on Ascap but its remix featuring Diddy is even though that hasn't been released. Its entirely plausible that different versions of songs exist. The best thing to do is to source from the album booklet and then if other reliable sources like Billboard where to report afterwards or the artist acknowledges the booklet was wrong then to credit others. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually both versions are on ASCAP. Smile. Although there is a legal obligation to credit authors on publications, it is not always adhered to on marketing material (i.e. album booklets). Whereas there is a strong argument that who gets the money is nearly always better policed. Yes, I'd be straight onto ASCAP/BMI or my PRO to make sure I get any royalty checks due to me. NB No objections to both sources being added and discrepancies pointed out. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that on Folklore, Prose072 wants the writers and producers to be listed in the Credits section, not the Track Listing section. They also have pointed out that the producers are already in both sections, which is true. The producers (Dessner and Antonoff) are already in the Credits section because they contributed to the songs as musicians, as well as being producers. Rfl0216 (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: What @Rfl0216: said. I posted the entire conversation except the entry made this morning concerning the term, "record producers" as defined by Wiki for transparency. Rfl0216 obviously agrees with the defined meaning of a "producer" since they agreed, as "true", that producers are more specifically credited in the credit section over the writers. And, it is our duty to ensure that proper reference and credit is provided to all parties. And because the "track listing" section does not allow *more specifics* to referenced on writers. Therefore, writers should also be properly listed within the "credits" section like producers so that "more specifics" can be included concerning writing credits like producing credits. I'm seeking a consensus on the issue(s) rather than doing it without a discussion that would likely upset many and present the wrong tone. Reasoning in example, colleges are not allowing citations in papers from Wiki because of "The sources still all seem to be limited to news stories and similar. Nick-D (talk) 8:14 pm, 8 August 2020, last Saturday (4 days ago) (UTC−5) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/1989_(Taylor_Swift_album)/archive2)" and other crediting reasons within articles since they become opinion based or are not properly or vaguely credited. And we're obligated to follow, at minimum, a standard similar to the "Credit lines required by license Edit Creative Commons Edit CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses Edit According to Creative Commons CC BY and CC BY-SA licenses (https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Credit_line). While a simple credit has been made for the writers in "track listing", no specifics and can be made like the producers are afforded more specifics in the "credits section". And the writers should also be properly credited in the Credits section so that "more specifics" for crediting can be attached and referenced that are pertinent to the album, songs written, and the article instead of a simple track list credit without any specifics or references to the credit. Prose072 (talk)

Yes, I see what you did, and that’s precisely why I’m saying you should do it over. You should not be copy/pasting massive walls of text of previously had discussions. You should provide links (WP:DIFs) to aid in readibility. I mean, do whatever you want, but I’ve been involved in enough discussions over the years to know that giant walls of texts generally scare most people from participating, and then no WP:CONSENSUS is found as a result. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I do understand @Sergecross73: because the issues get off topic and cannot be narrowed down. As for the issue now, should I clarify to be more specific or was the previous statement enough to understand the topic of discussion? Prose072 (talk)

@Prose072: What you need to do is get to the point quickly, don’t quote anyone, and make it clear and concise so we all can follow. From personal experiences, long messages aren’t fun to read, and the issue doesn’t end up getting resolved because everyone gets too confused. Please:

• Make it to the point, and only use quotes or sources when needed only
• Don’t go off topic
• Make it comprehensive, and take time to read it in 3rd person so you can understand what we feel
• Don't overuse the bold or italics functions, it makes it harder and harder to comprehend

Please clarify what you mean, concisely, without getting off topic. Thanks! Doggy54321 (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Prose072: Just wanted to point out when you say Rfl0216 obviously agrees with the defined meaning of a "producer" since they agreed, as "true", that producers are more specifically credited in the credit section over the writers that I was not clear enough in my earlier statement. I meant to state that the producers (Antonoff and Dessner) are in the Credits section specifically for their work on the songs as musicians -- literally for the instruments they play on the songs -- not for their work as producers. Rfl0216 (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rfl0216: Exactly what you just said, again, (definition posted, here, below, again, for meaning and clarification), "I meant to state that the producers (Antonoff and Dessner) are in the Credits section specifically for their work on the songs as musicians -- literally for the instruments they play on the songs -- not for their work as producers(["It's the same, See Below, "The producer may ... play instruments"])." because the definition is clear, they are the same,

"A record producer or music producer was once the overseer or operator of a musical act's sound recording and its refinement—roles now typically an audio engineer's—whereas today's record producers, directing or creating the musical sound and song structure, are mainly music composers who arrange the vocal and instrumental contributions while often coaching the musical act.[1][2] (The executive producer instead enables the project by arranging its financing and business partnerships.)

The producer may gather musical ideas or samples, help improve the song's lyrics or instrumentation, hire session musicians, play instruments, cowrite, or even publicly appear by name in the recording. Sometimes doubling as the engineer, the producer may supervise the entire process of creating a finished recording: preproduction, recording, mixing, and perhaps even mastering. For some projects, the producer also chooses all of the recording artists.[3] Music producers are likened to film directors.[2][3]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_producer

The definition is clear, "The producer may ... play instruments". And the issue to resolve is clear, "The producers in the track listing are limited credits. And the writers are the same. However, in the Credits section, it allows for the credits to be more specific and referenced for the producer and writers." Prose072 (talk)

Also, none of the listed producers in the track listing are "executive producers" except Swift, and she has been omitted from an executive producer credits there and in credits section for all songs (UMG is also an executive producer like Swift, not "record producer" (Antonoff, Swift, and Dessner). There's a difference that can be more specifically detailed in the Credits section. Same applies to writers (Credit specifics).

De-linking "rock," "singer-songwriter"?

This guy has been delinking these terms from articles, using script-assisted MOS fixes, under the presumption that "rock" is an everyday word. I've noticed this before, but this at Love for Sale (Bilal album) started an edit war today. While "singer-songwriter" is debatable, surely "rock" should remain linked as any other genre? isento (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Isento: I think singer-songwriter are common words and should not be linked, while rock on the other hand is a genre. I think rock should be linked then singer-songwriter. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah Isento I agree with TheAmazingPeanuts. The genre should be linked, even the most common ones, but not singer-songwriter. Robvanvee 16:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on MOS:OVERLINK, neither should be linked in the main text. Based on Template:Infobox album, the genre 'rock' should be linked in album infoboxes. EddieHugh (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"Rock" should definitely be linked in the infobox – it's inconceivable that it wouldn't be. I also think the term should be liked if it's relevant to discussion of an album or song's musical styles in the main body (because of the context, and consistent with any other styles that might be mentioned). I wouldn't link something as common as "rock" in, say, an introduction to the album/song artist – as in "Beggars Banquet is an album by the English rock band the Rolling Stones". In that context, words like rock (and band) aren't demanding attention or elaboration so that the reader can understand the point being made. Similarly, I wouldn't link "singer-songwriter" (or "producer", or "recording studio") unless the term is especially pertinent; for example, if there's discussion of the artist moving out of their singer-songwriter phase and into a period characterised by studio experimentation and sound exploration. In those instances, the common term is contextually significant, and a link would seem appropriate. I can't say I've come across examples like this too often, but I think that's how I'd approach it in practice. JG66 (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Tracklists: how much is too much?

My question actually refers to a single, not an album, but I thought I'd ask here anyway.

Check out the article for Born Slippy .NUXX. It has extensive tracklist information, documenting apparently every tracklist for every version of this single released. This strikes me as a bit excessive and means the article mostly contains different configurations of essentially identical track titles. I'm wondering if it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Any thoughts? Popcornfud (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m not aware of any stances on it either way. I never add any of that to the song articles I create, because I think it’s pointless. But I dont usually stop people if they add them to articles either. It kind of reminds me of the debates WP:VG had about having the Japanese names in the articles. The info’s not wrong...but it really benefits few readers. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a lot of unnecessary detail that doesn't add to understanding the song. Since the track listings take up a large part of the article (half or more?), there's also an undue weight-type issue. It could be reduced to a few sentences, which would make the article more readable and balanced. Unfortunately, the project page "If the song is a single include track listings for the single's different formats" is too open ended. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I've removed it from the article. Popcornfud (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Capitilization of "The Weeknd"

There's a disagreement over whether we should capitalize "the" over at The Weeknd. More input is needed. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)