Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 77

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77

Afrique Victime

I made a peer review for the GA Afrique Victime, would like more comments to thouroughly improve the article and hopefully make the article a FA, many thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Runrig singles proposed merge discussions

There are several proposed merge discussions regarding Runrig singles that may be of interest to this WikiProject:

Draft for upcoming Lady Gaga album

For those who might be interested in helping out:

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Tom Hull - on the Web

There's been some recent discussion of the above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz. Curious what other editors think of Hull's lists of grades, such as the one for Miles Davis.[1] I love ratings and grades, have never understood the idea that they trivialize either art or criticism, and, most importantly, notice that RS books still write about them--recent books include Questlove's (The Source), James Kaplan's (DownBeat), and Will Hermes's (Christgau, Rolling Stone). Not sure about grades divorced of prose, though--even Strong, Larkin, AllMusic, have bio/prose entries attached to their ratings. Thoughts? There has been some recent removing/adding back of TH list grades, so best to ask. Or maybe I'm missing where TH wrote about all these albums elsewhere. Part of the issue may be that "subject matter expert" is kind of thrown around too often, but I'd feel the same way if Greil Marcus or Albert Murray's ghost started publishing long lists of grades without any associated text. He also has this on his site:

"In the Introduction to my ratings database, I wrote: I've been accumulating records since the mid-1970s, and have sporadically written about popular music since then. . . . The database evolved from simple lists just to keep track of stuff -- originally records that I had listened to, then it grew to include records that other people think are worth listening to. . . . The grades probably say more about me than about the music."

Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

That Grapejuice.net

Can this be used as a reliable source for music related matters? Thanks Koppite1 (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Anecdotally, it seems like I've read that editors don't find it reliable. I can't recall the discussion(s) though. Hopefully someone else can chime in with something more concrete. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Will be interested to hear other viewpoints on That Grapejuice. net
Koppite1 (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Our Music (album)#Requested move 12 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Our Music (album)#Requested move 12 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Maximum number of ratings in a ratings template and displaying scores out of ten in stars

What is the policy with regards to these? I saw that in the article for Drukqs, the previous ratings template - comprising ten reviews, with numerical ratings out of ten presented as e.g. "7/10" rather than - had been changed so that more than ten ratings were present and those scores on a scale of 10 had been changed to stars (even when this clearly isn't helpful, i.e. Pitchfork's 5.5 can barely be parsed when presented as ). I'm under the impression that this is not preferred, and that ratings boxes should not exceed ten reviews. However my attempts to restore the older ratings box have been reverted twice by @Cambial Yellowing, who in their last edit summary says that "Twelve ratings is fine" (no mention of the star ratings which I think are a major eyesore when they're so small, which only happens when used to visualise a numerical system as large as ten). I don't wish to edit war, however I would appreciate some insight into this situation and whether the ratings box as it currently stands is suitable or not. Thank you. --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Star vs numerical is uncontroversial - I've amended. What was the basis for your apparently abitrary choice of what to remove? The record received very polarised reviews, from e.g. best album of artist's career to irrelevant. Reflecting this spectrum is better achieved with a couple more than ten reviews. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't arbitrary, I just restored the version of the template that was there before, rather than picking and choosing what to remove myself. I think the varied responses to the record can come across in ten review scores just as they could in twelve.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. The old selection of sources failed to reflect the spectrum of polarised ratings for the record. When ratings are polarised a slightly wider selection of ratings gives a better flavour of the variety of views. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Cambial Yellowing may not be aware of the existing consensus, but it is made clear here and here that there should be no more than 10 ratings in the template. If an editor wants to include more than 10 reviews, the rest should be in prose exclusively. If they feel the present ratings aren't reflective of the album's overall reception, then they can swap them out for ones that do, and if that's considered a controversial edit then it should be discussed on the article's talk page. And Template:Rating explicitly says "Please only use this template if the rating was originally expressed with the images used." QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
The template documentation indicates that more can be added in exceptional circumstances - the obvious exceptional circumstance being where there are widely polarised ratings for the record. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Sure, but you don't need to add more than ten. You could've opened a discussion up regarding removing some of the present ratings, or have included mention of those lower ratings in prose. It's not exceptional circumstances if clear alternative options exist. And besides, you should take into account the example of an exceptional circumstance which the template page uses; it's referring to an instance where e.g. the contemporary reception of an album was low, but retrospective reviews regard it much higher. All the reviews currently included are contemporary except for maybe a couple, so it's not exactly the same kind of exception that got that clause included. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Using Template:Rating for star ratings with non-standard symbols

Reposting here since nobody responded to my question on the template's talk page. Me and @TheAmazingPeanuts (with @Caro7200 joining later) are having a disagreement on how to read the line "Do not use {{rating|4|5}} where the source does not use stars" in the template's documentation. TheAmazingPeanuts believes that this line means that {{Rating}} shouldn't be used if a publication doesn't use star symbols (such as The Source using microphones and MusicHound using bones; both are essentially star-based ratings underneath). Me and Caro7200 disagree. I believe that since the the sentence before that talks about the star rating system, as opposed to a numerical system, here "stars" should also mean the system, not the specific symbol used. So, which one is it? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 10:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

My interpretation matches yours. So for example I use the {{rating}} template for MusicHound ratings. And for Tiny Mix Tapes ratings I use the fact that the template allows for different symbols: GanzKnusper (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I think it should be open to including non-star symbols since they act functionally the same in every other way, and the alternate symbol is only a cosmetic difference. My understand is that the point is to exclude sources which use no symbols for ratings. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Is metal.de reliable?

An IP editor recently added this citation from metal.de for an infobox genre claim. The site doesn't seem to be listed anywhere at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, and in particular the non-English section doesn't specify any sources. The only discussion I could find in the archives was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 64#Add Metal.de to WP:MUSICRS? from November 2021, but it looks like it had little input and no clear outcome. Courtesy ping to those participants @Geschichte and Sergecross73:. Left guide (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Emily Roberts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emily Roberts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Roberts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Left guide (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The Needle Drop: news section

This is a continuation of this discussion. Fantano has since closed applications for his news reporting section. I would like to know if it is reliable/credible or not (excluding pieces written by Fantano himself).

Pinging all users involved in the prior discussion:
QuietHere, Caro7200, Koavf, AstonishingTunesAdmirer, and Skyshifter. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 18:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't help much. We need to know things like what's their editorial policy and do they have credentialed and experienced staff. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I actually talked about that in the other discussion:

"Quick update: Applications have closed. As for Fantano's new staff, it seems ok. One of the staff members there has written for a handful of sources that are considered by Wikipedians to be of poor and/or questionable quality, which could raise some potential concerns. The editor in chief, however, is a writer at Beats Per Minute (reliable per this discussion), so I would expect some decent quality control going foward with the news section. Said editor's profile on the website can be found here."

— (pasted from the earlier discussion)

I was unable to find any editorial policy. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 20:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That's...not much of an argument for its staff...or anything for their editorial policy. My stance remains unchanged. I don't find it to meet our reliable source standards. Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Seconding Serge here. We're gonna need a lot more. Much better established sources have been rejected before. As I said before, I wouldn't get my hopes up. Perhaps some day it will grow into reliability, but for now I don't see it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link to the site in question The Needle Drop (which wasn't clear in the discussion, either).
No, thanks, it looks like just some site by some guy. There are a lot of those, and they're not all reliable. This one lists no policy, and no staff except Anthony Fantano, on a page claiming the site to be "the premier destination for music reviews, news, and insights" without telling us why, or when it surpassed Rolling Stone or Billboard or similar. Via a link in the header, I am apparently able to "Join", but there's no hint as to what that gets me. A chance to post my own reviews? No clue. My conclusion: drop it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, no offense to him, but he's essentially a Youtuber that has hit it big with popularity. Which is why discussions keep arising on him - he's popular and prolific. But he has the same problems as Youtubers go - they self-publish without any editorial control, say outlandish things for views and engagement, etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 17:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for being inactive, but here is a list of the news section authors and their credentials I could find:
  • Laviea Thomas: Wrote for The Line of Best Fit, NME, The Quietus, etc. ([2])
  • Jeremy J. Fisette: As mentioned before, he is an author at Beats Per Minute (see blockquote above)
  • Daniel Gonçalves Benítez: Was unable to find any credentials
  • Aaron Cousin: No credentials I could find.
  • Dana Badii: Unclear credentials, but this ResearchGate page claims they work in the music department of UCLA
  • Jasper Willems: Wrote for Beats Per Minute, Drowned in Sound, The Quietus, etc. ([3])
  • Daniel Bromfield: Wrote for Pitchfork, Resident Advisor, and Atlas Obscura ([4])
  • Tyler Roland: Seemingly wrote for this one satirical website, but I couldn't find anything relevant
  • Thomas Stremfel: Wrote for publications like Spectrum Culture ([5])
  • Albert Genower: Wrote for Cherwell and The Isis Magazine ([6])
  • Nickolas "Saz" Davis: Wrote for TheGamer and GameRant ([7] [8])
  • Alan Pedder: Wrote for Flipboard and The Line of Best Fit ([9])
  • Dylan Tarre: No credentials.
  • Tony Le Calvez: Wrote for this site
  • Alex J. Robinson: Freelancer, but he only mentions TND ([10])
  • Wade Stokan: Writes for Biff Bam Bop ([11])
  • Will Floyd: No prior credentials ([12] [13])
  • Alondra Sierra: No credentials
  • Steve Acedo: No prior experience ([14])
  • Tin Lee: No credentials
  • Lurk - Psudonymous writer. No credentials.
— 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 23:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
(Pinging Sergecross73 and QuietHere) — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 23:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd say we should evaluate on a case-by-case basis in the same way we do for Fantano's reviews. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 12:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
This helps, yes, but we still don't have any published editorial policy, and that is even more important. That they can hire experienced writers is wonderful for them, but it doesn't mean the site itself is any good. As is, I would reject this source altogether. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
And it also feels like majority of the staff hasn't written for sources we call RS's... Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Now that you say that, I actually counted, and there's only five or six (if you include Spectrum Culture) writers here with bylines we count as reliable, and that is very few for a list this long. It might still be alright if we knew anything else, but again, the all-important editorial policy is missing. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox artist discography § Template-protected edit request on 9 October 2024

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox artist discography § Template-protected edit request on 9 October 2024, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. There is a request to change the order of the infobox on discographies and to include mixtapes, demo albums, remix albums, and promotional singles. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Diffuser.fm

Is the netzine diffuser.fm a reliable source whose perspectives constitute due weight? It's being used on multiple music articles I regularly patrol, and a quick search of Wikipedia shows that it is being used on hundreds of articles. I have no idea if this website is reliable, while it is owned by Townsquare Media, who publish WP:RSMUSIC sources like Loudwire and Ultimate Classic Rock, what does not inspire confidence in me is the fact that they only list one staff member on their staff and contact info page [15]. For all I know, this is an RS that belongs on the RSMUSIC list alongside the above mentioned sources, but given how widely it is used on Wikipedia, I would like to establish a consensus here, and so I shall leave this up to others. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was usable. Pretty certain I've used it in the past without issue. Not sure I've ever done a full review of it though. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I believe it can be considered reliable. I've found it's similar to Ultimate Classic Rock, which is considered reliable. I used this Diffuser article when writing Duran Duran (1981 album); the article was written by respected journalist Annie Zaleski, so the site does have known editors who write for it. I think that would constitute reliability. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Considering that there appears to be consensus in this thread that it meets WP:RS, combined with its longstanding use on hundreds of articles, would anyone object to me adding it to the WP:RSMUSIC list? Pinging @Sergecross73: and @Zmbro: for input here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Nope – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I support adding it too. Beyond what was said above, their Senior Editor Tim Karan has a lot of good professional credentials as well. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Would anyone mind closing Talk:Brat_(album)#Merge_proposal

I know involved editors can close merge discussions, but I feel weird about it since I'm the last major !vote. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure   — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone like to cite some Turkish albums?

I am looking through https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Turkey.html#Cites%20no%20sources but I am not really interested in the many completely uncited Turkish music articles. Perhaps one of you might be Chidgk1 (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources for music

As part of identifying public relations editing at the article Symphony of Heaven and numerous articles created by the same editor, I'm trying to identify which sources are truly reliable. It was suggested that I ask here. I already started the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Identifying_reliable_sources_in_Symphony_of_Heaven_and_music_articles_in_general, so I'm linking there. Some of the sources appear to be closely related vanity zines directly related to the band/the promotion company or band members with masthead composed of bamd members. Graywalls (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Album categories by genre

An editor is bulk-adding these – [16] – but isn't there a guideline for categories that stipulate they go through the artists' article instead, or something? It's been a very long time since I saw it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I've always figured that if the album had a sourced mention of being a certain genre, that such a category was warranted, and if it didn't, it should be removed. I'm not aware of any actual guidance though, I've usually just operated off of a combination of WP:V and WP:DEFINING. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I think what you might be thinking of is that the categories go on the artist's albums category (Category:Overkill (band) albums) in this case), assuming they apply to the artist's discography as a whole and not just a one-off project like a Christmas album. I don't know anything about having to apply to the artist's article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_38#RfC_on_categorizing_all_works_by_an_artist_by_genre, "There is a clear consensus that artists should not be characterized by genre, at least not routinely." We should be categorizing albums and other works by genre, based on reliable sources. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Rolling Stone returns to star ratings in reviews

I didn't see anything on this talk page in the last few months worth of archives, but in case it escaped anyone's attention, Rolling Stone has returned to having a 1-5 star ratings in their album reviews, after 2 years of following a different system: [17] Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up! I don't read read their reviews for new music, so I wouldn't even know. And of course they had to screw it up: they don't show all 5 stars (including empty ones), so 4/5 looks like just four stars, 3/5 is just three stars, etc. Not really surprising, though, as their website is pretty bad. They used to have a lot of old reviews, but decided to nuke them, so now you have to search the Web Archive (not the easiest task as they reworked the site several times). AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 19:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Source check: Super Deluxe Edition

Is this a reliable source? https://superdeluxeedition.com/ Album news, reviews, etc. Smells reliable to me. Editor is Paul Sinclair, who has written in RSs such as The Guardian, The Times, Sydney Morning Herald, etc. Popcornfud (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I've always seen it as reliable, partly due to the editor in question. Plus, the website typically only posts articles about one thing (expanded editions of already released albums). On top of that, most of the info he posts is correct, so I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Wearethepit.com

This is a website that now redirects to a YouTube channel [18], which I see is being used on several Wikipedia articles (see here). My problem with the site is that, outside of it appearing to be a self-published source, a lot of what I have found from it appears to be clickbait churnalism. For some examples, see [19], [20], [21]. They were really into using clickbait headlines and over-the-top language to try and sensationalize content (see the third link), and all of these factors lead me to believe it is WP:NOTRSMUSIC. I intend to go and remove it from articles (particularly BLPs), but before I do that I would like to ask if anyone objects to my removals, or might want to argue in favor of this source being usable? JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

P.S., compare with Alternative Nation, Cryptic Rock, and Metalheadzone, all of which are on the NOTRSMUSIC list and are all similarly designed to recycle and republish content for the sake of profitability. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with everything you've said. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
User:Sergecross73, I want to ask, given that you were present in discussions for all of the sources I've compared this to above, are there any other clickbait rock/metal sites along these lines we should be treating similarly? JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I would say those are some of the worst offenders. I've been meaning to look into "Distorted Sound Magazine", which is used semi-regularly, and seems a bit iffy upon first glance though. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Out of curiosity about this source (which I had never heard of before you mentioned it here), I checked out their "about" ([22]) and contact information pages ([23], and the fact that there is no information provided about their staff's credentials (outside of "founder," "Heavy Music Editor," "Social Media Editor," et al) is a sign that they very likely fit the criteria of WP:NOTRSMUSIC. Because of this, I think I will also find information from this website and remove it (or at the very least the citations, in instances of superfluous WP:REFSPAM). For now, I think I will focus on seeing if it is used in BLPs, and remove citations to it from those articles. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I removed it from three articles, two of which are BLPs ([24], [25], and [26]), and I have found that most uses of this source seem like refspam for content supported by other, more reliable sources (see the first and third diffs linked), or for content that is verified in a different section (in the case of the second one). I see no reason to believe this is any different from Alternative Nation, Metalheadzone, and their spammy ilk, and it leads me to believe neither We Are the Pit nor Distorted Sound fit the criteria of what is expected of WP:RSMUSIC sources. @Sergecross73:, do you mind me adding We Are the Pit (and potentially even Distorted Sound) to the NOTRSMUSIC list? JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:An Introduction to .....#Requested move 22 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:An Introduction to .....#Requested move 22 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Source eval: NTS Radio

British online radio service established in 2011. Cited in Rolling Stone, NME, Pitchfork, and DJ Mag.

Credentials (these were the only ones I could find, I'm not joking):


I would like to know if this source is reliable. Thanks, — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 23:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about NTS, but why would it be a reliable source, or even a useful one? Looks like most of the hosts, or at least the ones listed in the NTS Radio article, are musicians and not journalists. Not to say that musicians aren't SMEs about music, but how often would you need to rely on something one of them says anyway? Perhaps if you provided examples of what you had in mind it would be more clear, but I'm not sure I understand the use case. And you haven't made a convincing case with this list of credentials, nor have you provided any evidence of editorial oversight. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Help reference albums in the WikiProject Unreferenced Articles #NOV24 Backlog Drive

Hi WikiProject Albums, I’d like to invite anyone interested to join the WikiProject Unreferenced Articles #NOV24 Backlog Drive. Many album articles are currently tagged as unreferenced, and this drive is a great chance to help improve them. You can see the list of unreferenced album articles here. The drive runs through November, and any help adding realiable sources is welcome—whether you add one source or tackle several articles. Thanks! Turtlecrown (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Alice in Chains (album)

I am working on a translation of this article and hope to have an FA before its 30th anniversary a year from today. I have been relying heavily on the Russian-language article's sources (c. 2020) for the work I have done so far, but I'm trying to get a little feedback on the issue of structure.

Could I feasibly pass a Recording section into different subheadings? The Russian article is a treasure trove of fascinating information, but I would want the comfort of knowing that such a massive project would be acceptable, because I've no memory of seeing a recording section on enwiki so big that it needs that many subheadings, but I imagine without them the section would look far too bloated. (Note: the recording section is far from even being finished, and it's already looking real big in English.) mftp dan oops 02:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I see no problem with breaking up a recording section into subsections so long as there's enough sourced content to call for it. I've even seen a few examples of this in FAs, such as The Dark Side of the Moon. Martin IIIa (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Good to know. mftp dan oops 19:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"Additional writers" credits

It's been a while since I've last done any editing for album articles, and upon my return I've noticed a curious trend. In the past few years, editors have been replacing track listings which look like this:

All tracks are written by Alan Smithee, except where noted.

No.TitleWriter(s)Length
1."The Phony Song"  
2."I'm Not Even Real"  
3."Imposter"Smithee, John Doe 
4."He Made it All Up"  
5."Don't Give Me a Made-Up Song Title and Tell Me it's the Beatles"Smithee, Vic Stench 


with ones that look like this:

All tracks are written by Alan Smithee, with additional writers noted.

No.TitleWriter(s)Length
1."The Phony Song"  
2."I'm Not Even Real"  
3."Imposter"John Doe 
4."He Made it All Up"  
5."Don't Give Me a Made-Up Song Title and Tell Me it's a Beatles Hit"Vic Stench 

This seems unnecessarily confusing and misleading at best (I think it's pretty obvious why, but if necessary I can elaborate), so at first I just reverted these "Additional writers" style credits without much ado. But I keep on bumping into them everywhere, which lead me to wonder if just possibly there could have been a consensus to convert track listings to this format en masse. Someone bring me up to date here. Martin IIIa (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm unaware pf any past discussions on this matter, but I definitely agree that the latter style is worse. Mach61 02:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's that confusing myself, but maybe my eyes are sharper than others. While I'm okay with the latter, I wouldn't object to ditching this informal practice. mftp dan oops 02:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
It's not just a matter of having sharp eyes; I don't see how someone could know that "additional writers" means "additional writers on a song" (i.e. co-writers with Alan Smithee) and not "additional writers on the album" (i.e. people other than Alan Smithee who wrote songs single-handedly) unless they already knew what the album writing credits are. Martin IIIa (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I've used the latter a few times, but primarily in cases where there are far more than two writers per track. Wasteland (Brent Faiyaz album), for example, includes at least four writers on 3/4s of the tracklist, and none with just the one that's being removed, so the former style would be useless to that page. To my eyes, it's a lot more legible than just seeing the one name repeated ad nauseam for every track. And I think your "additional writers on a song" point assumes less of Wikipedia's readers than they deserve; so long as the writing credits are listed adjacent to the appropriate tracks, why shouldn't we expect people to reasonably assume those credits apply only to those tracks? Frankly, I don't see a problem with it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
You've misunderstood what I said. In the latter format, the same phrasing would apply whether John Doe was the co-writer or sole writer of "Imposter", so how is the reader supposed to tell which it is? Also, you don't explain how the tradition style could be "useless". All you do is add the one name to each of the tracks, and there you have it, perfectly useful writing credits. Am I missing something here? All you've accomplished by using the latter style is to make the credits more confusing to readers with no previous knowledge of the subject and place (arguably undue) emphasis on the one name. Martin IIIa (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
There must be a disconnect, as I don't see anything particularly confusing in either of the scenarios you've presented. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I already said, 'the same phrasing would apply whether John Doe was the co-writer or sole writer of "Imposter", so how is the reader supposed to tell which it is?' If you don't have an answer to that question (and neither you nor QuietHere have provided one), then there you have it. Martin IIIa (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
The use of the word "all" by Smithee and "additional" in the note could only mean "co-writer" for Doe. Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I did explain that it was useless to Wasteland because it wouldn't remove any repetitive credits from that template. I didn't say it was useless generally, and I definitely strongly disagree with that; take Where I'm Meant to Be as an example of a time I've used the former effectively. And I think "except where noted" versus "with additional writers noted" makes a clear difference, as well as whether you see the name repeated in the credits or not. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
This is more or less my stance. I think there's a time and place for it. Sometimes, it can simplify the look by making it less repetitive. But at the same time, many editors don't really understand that context and try to force the approach into situations that make it look more convoluted instead. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
No one has yet pointed out any advantage to the latter format in any scenario beyond saving the editor from having to type out the same name a few times. That's a key point to me. Martin IIIa (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't see an advantage or disadvantage to either. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Is Indie Vision Music reliable?

Indie Vision Music has long been listed as a source at WP:CM/S, but its reliability is questioned. Please see the RS/N discussion. I'm soliciting input from this project because of past discussions here and I felt editors have some experience at evaluating music journalism sites.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Source discussion: Pan African Music

I'd love to be able to use Pan African Music (PAM) as a source for some African artist/album articles. However, their "About us" page says they were founded as part of IDOL, a music distributor/promotor. Clearly there is a conflict-of-interest: for example, Yemi Alade is listed on IDOL's homepage, so all the articles on her at PAM are presumably not unbiased.

Is there any hope of separating the biased from the un-, and using some of PAM's coverage? Or is it all unusable? GanzKnusper (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@GanzKnusper For establishing notability and making any statements independent of the subject, I don't think can be done at all with such a source. Because there's no way to tell if the artist is being promoted by IDOL, even if they aren't listed. They could be used for biographical statements about the artist themselves but they would still need independent sources for establishing notability.---3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
That's what I suspected. Thanks for the response! GanzKnusper (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
No problem. I'm sorry to disappoint.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No Clean Singing, Teeth of the Divine, Metal Underground, The Metal Onslaught

I've started a discussion at WP:RS/N regarding these sources and if they are reliable. Input at that discussion would be appreciated, please.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_77&oldid=1263926908"