Talk:List of 2016 albums/Archive 1

Archive 1

Thank You (Meghan Trainor album)

I'm not going to keep explaining this. Look at the refs. The one to MTV stated that Trainor said that she hopes to have it out by February or March. Even if Thank You isn't released by then, it will be released this year. Also, making WP:NOEDIT orders is frowned upon here on Wikipedia. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 21:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please try to avoid engaging in edit warring and attempt to reach a consensus rather than leave warnings on each other's talks and constantly revert. Isit2004 (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Isit2004: I'm not trying to edit war. I only left one warning, which was a Caution on the IP's talk page. I have explained to them, and left four references pointing that the album was going to be released this year, but they seem to want a flat-out date, which is why I listed it under Unscheduled and TBA. I've edited it three times within a 24 hour period. Not sure how that's "constantly reverting". The second time I edited was when I left the IP the caution on their talk page. The third time I edited, I provided three additional sources pointing to an album release in 2016. Again, not sure how that's "constantly reverting". And yet we're not gonna talk about them giving me No-edit orders... twice now... sure... And if you would like me to bring a few editors to give insight, I will. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 22:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ilovechristianmusic: Apologies, I was referring to mostly the IP user's constant reverting. I had assumed that you'd placed it in an actual month, which I recognize I shouldn't of. Upon actually checking a previous revision's TBA section, you did place it there, and considering its due in around Spring, it certainly should be out this year. The purpose of the TBA and Unannounced section is indeed for albums that we know will be released but can't give an exact date, so it should be fine for you to place it there. I acknowledge I should of checked where you placed it in the previous revision first, rather than just look at what got added and deleted in the yellow & blue boxes. I'd agree with you over the IP. Isit2004 (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Isit2004: No problem. Glad it's sorted out. I apologize if I seemed aggressive. Just a bit agitated over this. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 22:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ilovechristianmusic: I'd say unless the IP can bring up a more valid point than it not saying it is without a doubt being released, then go ahead and re-add it. You've cited four different sources. The IP also added or fixed a few references for Braver Than You, so I'd recommend just re-adding it so those don't get broken. Isit2004 (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Isit2004: I've brought it up at the Admin. noticeboard, hopefully they'll add some insight. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 22:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Although Ilovechristianmusic did provide 3 citations, three were inappropriate for listing in this article. However, the MTV citation was appropriate, and I re-listed the entry into the article. The citation from Fuse lists that Meghan is wrapping up the second album, but does not list a release date. The article is titled List of 2016 albums, which means that the album must be shown to be released in 2016, not that the artist has completed the recording work. 50 Cent's album Street King Immortal is an example of an album that was complete in 2011, but for one reason or another still has not been released. Therefore, a proper citation must include an approximation of the phrase "Will be released in 2016" or "Will be released this year". The Forbes article also does not list a release date, and so also is not an appropriate citation to allow the listing of the album. Finally for bad citations, the Ultimate Music citation by JosephVinaixa is a blog, which is never an appropriate citation.

Fortunately, the MTV citation states "Meghan, who hopes to have her second album out in "February or March"... ". This is a statement of intent to have the album released this year, and so the album entry can be listed in the article. Mburrell (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

New album feb. 26. 2016

Fedde Le Grand's debut studio album "Something Real" is said to be released on 26 February. This album isn't listed on the list of 2016 albums on Wikipedia. Infopage100 (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Posted a note in the user's talk page encouraging the person to do it themselves, which will help them learn how to edit in Wikipedia. I mentioned how people are willing to correct a badly done entry, but I have never seen someone else take a suggestion from the talk page and enter it into the main article. Mburrell (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not link individuals to bands if the individuals don't have a wiki-page

In the comment section of the edit history page, Trickykidd posted the following comment:

Andrew Hung has no own wiki page. He is the producer of Beth Ortons album and part of the Fuck Buttons. So why no link? I think it is interesting for wiki readers. And the linking between articles matches the sense of an online encyclopedia.

My response to his comment is that if an individual was significant enough to have a Wikipedia page, they would, and you could link to the individual. For example, Lzzy Hale of Halestorm has a Wikipedia page, and if we wanted to list Lzzy Hale as a producer, we would link to her. However, if she did not have her own page, linking to the band would imply that the whole band had an action in the production of an album, which it did not. However, it a band article had a paragraph on the individual, then we could link to the paragraph, and direct the Wikipedia user to the appropriate citation. For example, it I wanted to list Martha Davis as a producer, I would link to (The Motels#Martha Davis solo|Martha Davis), and that would take the user to a person not significant enough to have their own article, but significant enough to have a stand alone paragraph in an article.

My objection to listing a whole group when trying to link to an individual is that the group is much more than the individual, and has different achievements. In sports terms, if I wanted to link to Kobe Bryant, and he didn't have his own article (which he does), so I listed it as (Los Angeles Lakers|Kobe Bryant), but that would tell the user nothing about Kobe Bryant, plus if later he moved to another team, or he had played on another team earlier, linking to the team provided no information about Kobe Bryant.

In the same manner, listing Fuck Buttons when meaning Andrew Hung only provides information about the person while he is a member of the band, and the article does not mention that Andrew Hung is also a producer.

If someone like TrickyKidd wants to develop a paragraph within the article for the band Fuck Buttons all about Andrew Hung, I could support linking to the band and then the person's paragraph. Otherwise, linking to the band implies that Benjamin John Power also had some influence in producing the Beth Orton album when he didn't.

This is why I have consistently de-linked individuals from bands or production teams when only one individual from the group was involved in the production of an album. Linking to a band or team implies group involvement. Mburrell (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that linking to the Fuck Buttons implies that the whole band is involved in Beth Ortons album. Andrew Hung is listed as the producer and noone would think that the Fuck Buttons produced the album. Everybody would understand that the link only wants to tell that Hung is part of a band (and not 1 of 5 members, he is half the band!). This is what I want fom Wikipedia! Relevant and interesting cross references. "Who the F*** is Andrew Hung? Aaaaah, he is part of the Fuck Buttons. Lets read their article and listen to them!". If there is no link, my information ends with that Hung is the producer of Orton. Thats it. Wikipedia is more! Think of an unknown member of the Jackson family would produce an album. He or she does not have an own wiki page. Jackson is a common name. Noone would identify this Jackson as a member of the famous Jackson familiy. So why no link? It is a very interesting and relevant detail. I cannot write an article for Andrew Hung just to be allowed to link him in an article. And again my opinion: Linking to a band does not implies group involvement, because the name of the member is listed ALONE (in our case: as the producer)! Any other opinions? Mburrell, thank you for starting this discussion. But you should have started it without undoing my changes. Can i delete an edit of you and then start the discussion? I don't think so. You won't agree too. But you delete my edit and then start the discussion? This is why edit wars arise. Trickykidd (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not undoing your edit just after listing the reasons why. I am undoing your edit linking Andrew Hung because this is what I have consistently done for this article and similar list articles for 2 years. You are objecting because my edit affects one of your entries. I am objecting because there is not a clear rationale one way or the other, so I have consistently made one decision, which is to not link individuals to groups. You are the first to object, so now I am waiting for other input. Until there is other input, I will continue to de-link for consistency's sake. What happened if a few years ago, someone linked Jack White to the White Stripes, before he had his own article. Now, years later, that would effectively be a dead link, as he should be linked to his own article, and the White Stripes no longer exist. By linking an individual to a group, you are possible setting up for a future dead link. I would suggest the solution is to create an article for Andrew Hung, so that if someone is interested in that producer, they go to that article, and then find out he is also a member of a band called Fuck Buttons. There is only an edit war if you take the edits as malicious. However, now you can wait for others to chime in with their opinions. If the groupmind wants to link groups to individuals, then I will stop de-linking, and you can link Andrew Hung and Fuck Buttons. If the groupmind does not speak up, then I will continue to remain consistent with my editing. Mburrell (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I have created an own paragraph for Hung on Fuck Buttons. So I will link both pages again as you said before a paragraph would be enough. I do not now much of Hung and the Fuck Buttons and I am no fan. So I dont wanna spend time on creating an own article. This should do someone who likes him and his music. I am still interested in other opinions. You are right with the example of Jack White. There would be many dead links someone has to update. But I still prefer Wikipedia with relevant and interesting cross references. Trickykidd (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Source

In case this helps:

• http://www.complex.com/music/2016/01/most-anticipated-albums-of-2016/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I found the article very interesting, but it won't work as a source, as it is mostly well considered speculation. I found it interesting that it listed Kanye West's album as SWISH, which shows this article is dated, as the final release was titled as The Life of Pablo, which shows the article is a bit dated. What this article is best used for is to give indicator's for albums to watch out for, and to keep an eye out for definitive citations. This article is a useful tool for looking to the future for album releases for this year, or maybe the next. Mburrell (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the article referred to Ariana Grande's upcoming album as Moonlight, which is clearly no longer the title. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Citation formatting

Per the documentation of {{cite web}} |publisher= should not be used for work titles (periodicals, newspapers, etc); |website= or its alias |work= should be used instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Monolith of Phobos

@Mburrell: You removed someone's Monolith Of Phobos, but there is an article for Monolith of Phobos, which is by two notable artists. Just wanted to make sure you knew that there was an actual album by this title, and for which there is a Wikipedia article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, but the article I removed was for Monolith Of Phobos which because of the capital letter on "Of" was a bad hyperlink, so there was no way for me to know that there really was an article for Monolith of Phobos. I saw an addition where the artist was a non-linking hyperlink, the album was a non-linking hyperlink, and no citation was provided. It is not always incumbent on me to do the research to determine if an error was made, and if so, what it was. But, it sounds like you did do the research. Therefore, when you add the group and title back, along with an appropriate citation, I will know that the album is notable, and I will not remove. Mburrell (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Publisher vs. Work

I wonder what to use now. The recent edits are a mixture, some are using Publisher, some are using Work. Mburrell, what do you think? Trickykidd (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Trickykidd, as mentioned above in the talk subject Citation formatting, listed by Nikkimaria, per the documentation of {{cite web}} |publisher= should not be used for work titles (periodicals, newspapers, etc); |website= or its alias |work= should be used instead. I really don't care one way or the other, myself, but because I don't care, I have not been making a strong effort to fix citations. To me, a magazine title is the publication title, so I liked publisher as being the closest thing to publication. Work does not sing to me to mean publication title.

In general, when I am adding a citation, I search for a citation by the same publisher and preferably by the same author, then copy it into the new or modified album row, then copy over the url and title from the new citation, and type in the publication date and todays date into the accessdate. This way, I am using the same format for the same publications.

Not all the citations in this list are news citations. iTunes has been used on occassion when I can't find a news article or review that mentions the album release date. Technically we should not be using a commercial site like iTunes, or Amazon or JBHiFi, but since this is not the main album article but merely a list which is listing release dates, I have not been too particular on that front, although I have always deleted and replaced citations from YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, blogs, band or artist homepages, and citations from record companies as being too self-serving, too non-notable, or too commercial. A web site like iTunes would not be a work, but I guess it could be website instead of publisher. If you want to take on the responsibility of fixing the citation formatting and maintaining proper listings, go for it. Nikkimaria did a hit-n-run edit, and moved on. I don't care enough to do it. Mburrell (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not minded to spend a lot of time cleaning up only to be reverted. Publication titles like Esquire use |work=, publishers like Amazon use |publisher= - it's correct that there will be a mixture overall, although some of the individual citations here are not correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the reversion of Nikkimaria's edits came about for two reasons. Initially, no explanation of why |publisher= was being changed to |work= which made it appear that changes were being made as a personal preference. I remember asking in the Edit summary for a reason for the changes, and stopped resisting the move to |work= after a good source reason was provided. It would have been smarter for me to ask for the explanation for the changes in the Talk page, just like Trickykidd did, but I guess I am not as smart as Trickykidd is. However, the second reason for the reversions was that instead of just reverting the citation formatting changes, there were mass reversions of all my edits which encompassed many changes and fixes, so many that it was easier to just revert back to the previous clean copy. This goes back to a previous statement that it is not fun to spend a lot of time cleaning up only to be reverted. This time I remember that I finally took the time to split my edits into two separate changes, to allow Nikkimaria to revert only what was important for the citation formatting without requiring another mass reversion of many of my other edits. I think that was the final reversion Nikkimaria made, where a proper explanation was provided on Wikipedia's policy on formatting, although I can't remember if that was in the talk page or in the Edit summary. I guess this goes to the rule of thumb that good communications helps avoid confusion and helps prevent ill-will. I am certainly at fault at times on poor communication, and occassionally try to get better at it.

Back to what Nikkimaria said; it is okay that there is a mixture of |website=, |work=, and |publisher= for the references. Just try to keep |work= for the periodicals (Anything published on a periodical basis, which sums up all magazines, on-line magazines, and newspapers) Mburrell (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mburrell, for the explananation. I make lots of edits. Not sure if I will always use the correct citation formatting. I don't like "work", so I'll try to use "website" instead if both are correct. Trickykidd (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Trouble inserting new albums

for the month of July, I inserted Sinsaenum and Soilwork. There are two now that are showing incorrect. I dont know how the error occured but if someone can fix it i would appreciate it — Preceding unsigned comment added by BjornStormcloak (talk • contribs) 01:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit War (or removal/addition of a non-notable artist)

Mburrell seems to be at an edit war. yes i have had problems putting in albums. I have added Jinjer twice and he keeps deleting it even though i have linked to the bands website stating there was an album released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BjornStormcloak (talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

First, the primary definition of an edit-war is if something is reverted three times in a 24 hour period. This has been reverted three times in three days. Second, and more important, just posting an album and a band does not give it the right to remain in the article. This article is part of a larger project to create an on-line encyclopedia, and therefore has rules about notability and verifiability. You have never posted a citation for the album, or in fact for any of the albums you have posted. On many of the artists and albums you have posted, I have gone out and found a news citation to support the album. However, Jinjer is a non-notable band, so I have not wasted my time looking for a citation. In case of established notable bands, I have let slide using a commercial website such as iTunes to provide a date of release, as that is one of the defining points of this list. Jinjer does not have a Wikipedia article for the band, which is the major strike against it for notability. There are a couple of bands in this list that don't have a wiki-article for the band, but each of those bands have a Wikipedia article for the album. Also, it is not enough to just create an article for the band or album. The article must be supported by citations from reputable sources. Social media, YouTube, crowd-sourcing sites, record company press releases are not acceptable for Wikipedia citations. If the article is nominated for speedy deletion or has been deleted, that is evidence that the artist or album is non-notable, or not enough effort was put in to support the article.

To sum up what I just said, until you can prove that Jinjer is a notable artist, it will continue to be removed, and it won't be an edit war but good editing.

I do owe an apology on one point. The first time I removed it, I didn't note why I removed it because to me it was so badly done and unsupported that it was just a thing to toss in the trash. The next day, when I deleted it again, it was for the same reasons, but I should have been explicit in the reason because it was obvious you cared about the entry. When I removed it earlier today, I finally gave the reason for the deletion. Until you support your addition, and prove the band is notable, please know that it is being removed for non-notability and lack of citation. Mburrell (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Its funny because you have been accused of this before so its obvious to see you get defensive an make the comment that you will continue to remove someones posts. Just because a band dont have a wikipedia article dont mean they should be deleted. They are signed to a major label as well as listed on that major labels wikipedia page as being signed by them. Furthermore there is a link that i have posted that verifys the album as well as that they are with such label. Also the website that i linked to is the bands actual website. I also find it very rediculous that a bands website or a record label site isnt considered a legit article but hey you-tube is. Cmon get real, if the point is to build the database for everyone than why be so close minded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BjornStormcloak (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not being defensive, I am trying to explain Wikipedia policy on notability and verifiability. And yes, if you edit long enough, you will be accused edit wars. Does not mean it is true, just that people are protective of their entries. I am not close-minded about this. I am begging you to put in the work to built a Wikipedia article for the artist. I have built pages for artists. It should take about 4 to 8 hours to do the research to find unimpeachable, reputable citations for the band, build the article, review for grammar. If you believe in this band, do the work. Wikipedia is not a blog where any entry is acceptable. This is an encyclopedia, and diligent work is appreciated and required. And, to clarify, band websites and record label sites are not acceptable, and YouTube is even worse, so not acceptable. I am sorry someone somewhere implied it is, but it is not. But I am glad to have this discussion with you, so that you know this is not personal, but now you know my expectations for you. Good luck. Mburrell (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Well congrats you ran off a contributor. I wont bother anymore. And by the way there are other artists with no wikipedia page, but you didnt target them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BjornStormcloak (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry to see you go. You brought in valuable contributions when you listed Sinsaenum, Soilwork, Myrkur, Brujeria, Lords of Acid, and Ringworm, and moved Meshuggah from the TBA table into the calendar lists. I completely supported your work on those bands, by providing proper citations. I thought we were working well together, and hoped for a long partnership of your passion for music and my passion for proper formatting, citations, and Wikipedia. I am sorry that you felt that the removal of one non-notable band was enough to dampen your enthusiasm, and hope that you re-evaluate why you came to this article in the first place, and decide to rejoin the community. Mburrell (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Acceptable use of Primary sources

I believe we can use record label pages as references for album release dates.

I was reading the talk page of a super-editor/administrator, Iridescent, and I caught a fact that I have been misinterpreting. I have been saying we cannot use record label announcements as sources, because of my understanding that we needed a reliable news source. In terms of sources, the record label page is a primary source, while a news source is a secondary source. Per Wikipedia's rules page Wikipedia:No original research, a primary source can be used per the statement: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Therefore, for straight, undisputed facts, a reputably published primary source can be used. I am reading this to mean that we can use a record label page, unless they have a reputation for providing optimistic but unreliable data. I also believe that we still cannot use artist or band pages, as they are not known to be reliable, except maybe on a case-by-case basis, and how would we know who was reliable and who was hasty. I use for an example Jem, who announced an album would be released in the spring of 2015, then updated her page to say spring of 2016, and then updated it to announce the imminent release of the album. Only one of those statements were true, so it tells me her page was unreliable for reputable information. I assume most other bands and artists are also unverifiable for reliability.

Even periodical releases such as Blabbermouth.net and Alternative Press have announced an album release date, to later go back and modify the release date. However, they are secondary sources, which are the chosen source for citations. Primary sources have a greater requirement to show reputablility, and if record label webpages start showing a habit of unreliablility, then they will fail the requirement for being reputable, and we would have to stop using them. I think it is worth loosening the choices of sources and seeing if it provides more choices for citations. Mburrell (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)