Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

→

Archive 65

Reliable vs. Unreliable sources

Differentiating reliable vs. unreliable sources in music articles is not entirely straightforward. If I wanted to determine whether this reference is appropriate, what should I do? I do know that I should look in WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. https://musiccanada.com is not listed. In the past, I have taken this to WP:RS/N. Seems like it might be easier to discuss music sources here. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You’ve pretty much got it covered - you can ask here if it’s music related, or take it to WP:RSN. Different WikiProjects often have areas you can ask - here for music, WP:VG/S for video games, etc. I personally generally prefer asking WikiProjects - their industry specific insight is usually a little more insightful in my experience. But some content areas have little to no participation, so then you’re forced to RSN. The music area is usually pretty good for input though. At the very least I’m usually around, though I’ve been a little busy lately. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to mention: I’m pretty sure Music Canada is a reliable source. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it’s basicall to Canada what Billboard is to the US. As in, a big authority in the industry. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Music Canada is more than reliable... it's the organisation that certifies gold and platinum discs in Canada, so it's more like the equivalent of RIAA than Billboard.

The reliable sources list of music publications and websites is far from exhaustive... speaking from a British perspective, I've written on this talk page in the past about missing UK publications that should be on there... NME was the UK's best-known weekly music paper, but there was Melody Maker, Sounds and Record Mirror as well. Q, Mojo and Uncut are the current music monthlies, but there are defunct ones as well, like Select, Vox and The Word. Plus a multitude of more specialised and usually more "retrospective" monthly or bi-monthly magazines, such as Classic Pop, Classic Rock, Electronic Sound, Long Live Vinyl, Prog, Shindig, etc. etc. All of these are/were published by major publishing houses and with editorial control and we'll known and respected journalists - as far as I'm concerned they should all be considered reliable sources for the UK. Richard3120 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:,@Richard3120: Thank you for your responses. Can we add some of these very reliable sources to the list? I don't know how many unreliable sources there are, but it would be nice to mention some of the worst sources that editors frequently try to cite. It's hard for me to keep track, and that list is quite helpful.

Related question: I frequently go to RS/N to ask a question about, say, YouTube, and I know there will be countless discussions about that source. Doing a simple search on YouTube at WP:RS/N brings up so many it could take hours to read them all. It would be nice to maintain a curated database of *all* past discussions (like WP:RS/P, but more complete) to make it easy to look up old discussions about specific source discussions based on importance, conclusions drawn, context of source discussed, chronology, etc., so editors don't have to go through the painstaking process of this search each time looking at the disorganized mess that the search engine produces. I would be willing to put work into maintaining and organizing such a database. I do know the caveat that keeping any list or database up to date is always a challenge, and there is the danger it could become stale. I might bring this up at Village Pump, but wanted to check in with you guys first. In some ways, I think this can be at least as helpful as specifically giving a black/white thumbs up or down, because we all know that there are legitimate and commonly raised objections to outright bans on sources that are often, but not always unreliable. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: there's a list of some of the common "unreliable sources" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Unreliable sources.

Regarding a complete list of reliable sources, I think it would end up being a very long list. In addition to the sources I've mentioned above, I could add magazines/websites that cover heavy metal/rock (Kerrang!, Metal Hammer), classical music (Gramophone, The Musical Times, BBC Music, etc.), jazz and blues (Jazzwise, Blues & Rhythm), electronic dance music (Mixmag, DJ Mag), world music (Songlines, fROOTS), magazines dedicated to music production (Sound on Sound, Computer Music, Future Music), all the magazines dedicated to specific instruments (piano, guitar, bass guitar, drums, etc.), newspapers with longstanding and respected music sections (The Times, Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent), defunct music magazines of various genres (Ministry, Muzik, Disc, Smash Hits), Songwriter, BBC Music, and of course the UK's equivalent of Billboard, the trade paper Music Week. Every one of these should be considered reliable. And these are just UK publications – the US must have just as many, and Europe has produced many reliable publications over the years. And I can't speak for Canada, Australia, New Zealand... Richard3120 (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Richard3120 Thanks for the response and the list. Although I certainly want our music articles to be the best they can be, my main focus is getting the WP:PROMO out and the statements (and citations) that are based in unreliable sources. I know there are others who have similar desires, and the main thing I am seeking is a way to make our job of spotting WP:PROMO and terrible sourcing easy, or at least easier.

Before I came here to discuss, any particular source I have never heard of could be 15 minutes of research or more. I'm hoping that we can cut that down on the "perennial" bad sources. Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Unreliable sources. I will keep my eye out for articles that use those. Maybe it will just take time to get the hang of spotting the difference between good and bad sources in this subject matter. I do feel the amount of WP:PROMO in the articles in music articles is troubling and I want to help clean that junk out, so we have better quality music articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Are there any music articles that are properly sourced that I can use for a reference? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

David Tornheim Generally speaking, any articles that are considered ”Good Articles” or ”Featured Articles” are generally considered good examples to follow. That said, these articles are properly sourced at their time of review. It is possible, for example, for an article that was designated a good article in 2013, to have degraded in quality in 2017 when someone slipped some bogus refs on without anyone noticing. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah. I'm well aware of that problem.  :) I have seen articles with a well-deserved positive rating turned into mush, despite objections to the changes that undermined its quality.  :( --David Tornheim (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

YouTube references (and others like it) used improperly

While fighting vandalism using Huggle, I saw an IP editor add YouTube as a reference for the YouTube video, violating our basic WP:RS rules. I found this was just one of many instances, which I deleted, e.g. [1]. Unfortunately, it takes little time before the IP's add the stuff back in with no sources or the same sources, and the same language, that sounds it was written by a media professional [2]. I think they are using Wikipedia as promotional advertising click bait, and there is big money it making sure the wikipedia article makes it easy to find and click on the video as a "reference" and those who are adding it care not a shred if this violates our sourcing rules.

I saw Koavf delete similar advertising that I had called into question [3], asked him about my concerns here, and he suggested I come here to discuss any problems.

I have some questions, which I might add here. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. @Binksternet: I know you are aware of the problems with Maroon 5 pages. I thought you might want to participate in this discussion (and the other section I posted below about WP:RS in this field). --David Tornheim (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure. YouTube URLs pointing to songs online are not much of a reference for anything. I've seen people cite them for the number of views, but that number can be artificially inflated. I've seen people cite YouTube just to say that a song exists, but it's not necessary if the song is published. If somebody is citing YouTube for musical analysis then they're even further off base. YouTube and iTunes have also been cited in a few cases where a user wants to point out a song's title styling, for instance all lower case. I don't think any of these uses count as reliable. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Thanks. I agree completely with your analysis. I noticed the problems continue on the Maroon 5 page and on their songs. I wonder if it would be worth requesting an "auto-confirmed" user requirement to cut down on this. I find these reversions tiresome. As soon as one IP gets enough warnings, a new one shows up. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Another very common reason for citing Amazon, iTunes, or YouTube is for release dates which I also think are not reliable and mostly just recognize when something went on sale through those vendors rather than when it was released. A source like Billboard or Rolling Stone would be appropriate for this information, not a storefront or social media outlet. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

What about this

@Binksternet: and @Koavf: Are sources like this legit for:

The band performed the song on 45th at Night, which originally included a special guest Eve for the remix version, but never officially recorded. However, the band later requested artist Mary J. Blige with musician Mark Ronson to appeared on the song's official remix version.

or

A director's cut version include more scenes from the original video.

References

I asked below, but got no response. I hate to burden WP:RS/N with looking at all these trivial seeming sites, but maybe that is the only choice? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Rap-Up is listed on WP:RSMUSIC as usable. StereoGum isn’t, but I thought it had been. I’ve used it in the past without issue at least. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

List of most-liked YouTube videos

I have open up a talk section at List of most-liked YouTube videos about this same problem at that article here: Talk:List_of_most-liked_YouTube_videos#YouTube_as_reference_for_itself --David Tornheim (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Vintage Synth

Vintage Synth Explorer is listed as a reliable source, but I can't find any discussion about it in the archives. Was it ever discussed? Is it really considered reliable? Popcornduff (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd been thinking about discussing this with you ever since you put up that batch of Roland articles for deletion. I agree it was probably too much in one go, but in general I agree with you that many individual models of synthesizer don't need their own article or pass individual notability. As we both know, many of these articles were created by the user Ijustwannabeawinner, who seemed to create about three articles a day, but who has been totally absent from Wikipedia since October 2018. Many of his articles are mostly or entirely dependent on references from Vintage Synth Explorer, and I did give him a friendly warning on his talk page that the reliability of that website was likely to be questioned.

To be honest, what I see doesn't make me think it qualifies as an RS. The "About" page states that it started out as a one-person blog, and grew into a community website with contributions from its members – it's clear from this post [4] that it still depends heavily on the community members to supply its content. The one person who writes all the news articles, Naomi Bolton, has the job title of "community manager" rather than "journalist" or even "editor". That just reinforces my belief that this is a crowdsourced website where anyone can contribute, and nobody is fact-checking any of the content.

The website seems to have been added to the "reliable sources" list in this edit in January 2015 by 3family6, an editor who used to be very active on WikiProject Albums but now edits more sporadically, and on other topics. I have no idea if these sources were added following a consensus decision, or unilaterally. Richard3120 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

We should feel free to remove it. No discussion here and none at RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for these responses, guys. I've removed it from the list.

@Richard3120: My nomination was overzealous - I must have had too much coffee that day. But something really ought to be done about the abundance of terrible synth articles. They're just graveyard pages for enthusiasts to dump boring and uncited technical detail, and I still suspect many do not need to exist at all. (For example, I cover the various rereleases of the TR-808 in the TR-808 article; can't we just do that for other similar ranges of gear?) If you have any ideas for how to go about looking at these pages as a team I'm all ears. Popcornduff (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, when I was cleaning up the list in summer 2017/2018/whenever, there were a lot of sources that didn’t appear to have ever been discussed. I started discussions on a bunch that I felt were especially reliable or unreliable, but there were a ton that I couldn’t tell from a brief glance that I just never got around to opening discussions for - I got burned out after a while between not getting much input, and it being tedious work when done en masse. (And it was tiresome dealing with “website defenders” who would complain about the treatment of their website of choice) Point being - there’s a lot of entries that have had minimal discussion, so don’t hold back on challenging them if you have specific, good-faith doubts and there’s no discussions linked. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Thanks for that, Serge. I'll bear that in mind. Popcornduff (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've just become aware of this convo. I don't recall my exact rationale for adding Vintage Synth Explorer. I presume I did so because it has 1) a writing and editorial staff rather than user generated content, and 2) the founder is a professional in the field. I'm not vested in defending the site if other editors such as yourselves deem it of poor or questionable quality/reliability.3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I can only find two people involved in the website: Matt Friedman, who started it as a personal blog and presumably still oversees it; and Naomi Bolton, who appears to do everything else on the website (writing all the articles, and maintaining the forums). Richard3120 (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Discogs and cover art

Is Discogs generally considered reliable when it comes to album/single cover art? I'm trying to help someone sort through whether the same cover art was used for Come to Daddy (song) and Come to Daddy (EP), but haven't been able to verify it was also used for the single. I was able to find this and this, but the cover art shown for each is slightly different: one has a label in the upper left, but the other doesn't. So, I'd figured I'd ask here to see what some others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You’d treat it in accordance to WP:USERG in any context. It’s content uploaded/created by anyone who signs up without traditional editorial oversight. It can be used as a personal reference point, but not as a usable, reliable source in the Wikipedia context. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sergecross73 for taking a look. Do you know how Discogs goes about getting the images it hosts? Can they also be added by anyone or is there some sort of editorial control over them? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

My Brilliant Friend: Season 1 (soundtrack)

Could someone take a look at this and assess for WP:NALBUM? It's newly created and the only source provided so far is a link to iTunes. The album exists, but it's not clear if it's notable enough for a stand-alone article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't see anything online to make me believe that it should exist as a spin-off from the article about the TV series, and it should be merged into that article, in my opinion. The soundtrack has been out for four months, so it has had enough time to get some attention. I can only think it might have had some reviews in classical music magazines, or in magazines about TV and movies, which sometimes review soundtrack albums. Richard3120 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Original album title or current one?

In 1970 Jose Feliciano released a self-titled album of Christmas songs, one of which was "Feliz Navidad". The album spent four weeks on Billboard's Christmas Albums chart in December 1973 and did not chart again under that title. Another self-titled Feliciano album was released in 1981 and reached the magazine's R&B Albums chart, but it does not have its own Wikipedia page yet. When the Christmas album was reissued in 2001, it was retitled Feliz Navidad and has appeared on the Holiday Albums chart during the past two Christmas seasons. The page for it was given the 2001 name with disambiguation, but I don't know if there's any precedent that says which name it should have. I would have guessed that it should be under its original title and disambiguated with "(album)" until a page is created for the 1981 album. I'd be curious to hear if there's already been a consensus on this sort of thing or if we need to create one. Danaphile (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I would say per WP:COMMONNAME to use the title the album is more commonly referred by. I have no clue what that title would be here since this isn’t normally the genre I edit in (I typically edit within EDM, so yeah, this is completely out of my league.) Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of discussion of track listing RS

Please see this discussion at WP:RS/N about how to handle track listing WP:RS: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Track_listings.

I have little doubt this discussion has been covered in depth somewhere, but where to find it? Please comment there. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Is HotNewHipHop a reliable source?

There have been a debate over the website HotNewHipHop. The website was added in multiple hip hop-related articles but nobody never question the website is reliable enough or should be added in WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. Should this website classified as reliable or unreliable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

What did the prior discussions say? It’s good to recap that as a starting point. Sergecross73 msg me 01:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

And why would it be "an reliable source"? It would be "a reliable source", wouldn't it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Sorry about my bad grammar, my English isn't good sometimes. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

In case project members are unaware, the Wikipedia article for this website has been put up for AfD at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/HotNewHipHop, which is probably what has sparked TheAmazingPeanuts' question... not that a website needs to have a Wikipedia article to be considered reliable, of course. Richard3120 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quite alright. Thanks for fixing it. The discussion we had last time concluded it was reliable and I started by suggesting a discussion at WP:RSN would be the better option. Regardless, is there a reason you think it might not be reliable? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: and @Walter Görlitz: Well in case you don't know, an editor named STATicVapor think the website is not reliable because it's not added in WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. I almost got in a edit war but I decided against it and just start a discussion here instead. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

STATicVapor is a pretty knowledgeable editor who used to be more active a few years back. I imagine his stance is a bit more nuanced than “it’s not on the list”. Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: If you look at the edit summary of this edit here, I can't help to get the impression of why they think it's a unreliable source. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes - I was solicited here. They clearly have editorial oversight, and I noticed from a quick skim of their staff that one of their contributors is Mike Madden, whose name I recognize from Consequence of Sound; maybe there are more contributors of relative experience too. I see that the website's article is up for deletion, and I can't speak on the notability or adequacy of third-party coverage for it to have an article of its own, but this should be an adequate source for its target audience/article topic: hip hop. Dan56 (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI, here was our last discussion on it. I imagine it didn’t go on either list because we were a bit split on our stance on it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Basically, I came across the source used in many articles and used as a reviewer in Critical reception sections. Back when I used to edit heavy 2010–2014, I was always under the impression it wasn't reliable and was more of a blog in nature. I don't know if anything has changed in their editoral oversight since then, but I checked RSN and this Wikiproject archives and found only the discussion linked above. Upon reading, it seemed like the consensus was that it was not very reliable, but okay to use for minor non-BLP claims such as album releases. I then checked the style guide for this Wikiproject. It said that for critical reception sections: "The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc. A list of some sources of professional reviews is available at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES." I then checked WP:ALBUM/SOURCES and since HotNewHipHop was not there I removed it from the few album articles I came across. Sorry if I misunderstood the consensus it seemed User:Sergecross73 and Walter Görlitz thought it was either unreliable, or limited reliable. StaticVapor message me! 02:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. I think it's fine to use, as it's been around for years and is well-known in reporting on hip hop news in that sector, and as pointed out by Dan56/from when I've looked in the past, I believe it has editorial oversight and is not just some run-of-the-mill blog or tabloid-like website. I also believe WP:ALBUM/SOURCES says it's not an exhaustive list, doesn't it? Or one of those pages listing good sources does... Ss112 03:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable for article text under a byline. This website gets a lot of traffic and has paid staff attending to it. Traffic is reported as 590,000 sessions per day, or 17.7 million sessions per month.[5] The writing has editorial oversight by Rose Lilah, editor-in-chief. Lilah is considered an expert on the topic, having been quoted in this book about the hip hop sub-genre of trap, and having been invited to speak on a panel about digital strategies in hip hop at SXSW 2018. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable not only it has an editorial oversight which is mandatory in this case and some of their contributors have written for COS, Idolator, and other publications. Furthermore several articles from other magazines get some of their information from HotNewHipHop, such as XXL magazine. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Sounds like we have consensus that they are a reliable source. Now that this website was discussed, we can always point back to this thread. Question, so are they also a notable reviewer to use in critical reception sections/review score boxes? StaticVapor message me! 10:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@STATicVapor: I think the website is a notable reviewer to use in critical reception/review score boxes, since they do have a score rating system and they do review albums from popular hip hop artists. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• No - I have checked their staff page and most of the writers don't seem to have any professional experience other than HNHH, they just come across as a bunch of regular hip hop fans. But the time I completely lost faith in this website was when they falsely reported that 6ix9ine had been released from prison.--NØ 20:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The headline itself says "reportedly"... they were only reporting what information they had at the time. And they later corrected the report when it became clear that this wasn't the case. That's hardly "false reporting", and they're not the first news organisation that have had to retract initial statements. Richard3120 (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: The Fader accuse Anthony Fantano of promoting alt-right and racist sentiments in videos on his secondary YouTube channel "thatistheplan", which is not true. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Koavf: Mostly anybody in this discussion agreed that HotNewHipHop is a reliable source, what are you doing by removing this source off the article 2014 Forest Hills Drive? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HotNewHipHop. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Koavf: Just because the article of the website got deleted, doesn't make the website any less reliable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Good point. Thanks and sorry. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of discussion about dbase.tube as reliable source

Please see this discussion at WP:RS/N:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dbase.tube

--David Tornheim (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Billboard database for streaming charts

Hi all. I recently came across some odd errors in the Billboard database. It displays data for streaming charts before those charts even existed. For example, I found that it shows an album charted on "Top Album Sales"—a streaming-related chart that didn't exist until December 2014—as far back as 2000. You can see my full post about it here, on the talk page of Wikipedia:Record charts. If you know anything about this issue, feel free to weigh in. This issue involves Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs too, so I'm bringing it up there as well. —BLZ · talk 20:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Help finding a Radiohead source

The 2001 Radiohead song I Might Be Wrong, from their album Amnesiac, was released as a promo single (see Discogs), but I can't find a source for this anywhere. Does anyone have any suggestions of where to look?

Another thought: would anyone mind taking a look at the I Might Be Wrong page and seeing if we think it deserves to exist at all? I haven't been able to find much coverage of the song independently of the Amnesiac album, and most of the stuff on the page is poorly cited anyway. Popcornduff (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Brandt Luke Zorn might have some insight here... Popcornduff (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: Missed this earlier, I was inactive for a little while in late April. Found something in the book Radiohead: Music for a Global Future. From p. 116, via preview of the book on Amazon): "Meanwhile, 'I Might Be Wrong' was released in early June [2001] as a video and radio-only single in America, quickly followed that month with the release of the album ..."

There's also a bit more out there on the music video. From Medium Cool: Music Videos from Soundies to Cellphones, p. 92–93: "In fact the marketing of Radiohead took an interesting corporate swerve when the video 'I Might Be Wrong' was released exclusively on the Internet in QuickTime. The group's producer then took part in an Apple advertising venture disguised as a news story ... in which he was quoted as saying, 'We used a multitude of Macs for audio editing, manipulation and sequencing on pretty much all the tracks on Kid A and Amnesiac.'" Here's that archived "news story", really a press release on Apple's website. No Logo, indeed.

I think there's gotta be enough out there for an "I Might Be Wrong" article, but it would have to be put together properly to avoid becoming a stub. It wasn't too substantial when you nixed it into a redirect, so no worries. I might work on rebuilding it later this week. —BLZ · talk 21:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Brandt Luke Zorn: Great work as ever, BLZ. References in books always seem to escape me - so much easier writing about modern releases where everything is covered online. Feel free to restore the IMBW article if you can pull the info together.

BTW, the Amnesiac page says You and Whose Army was also released as a promo single, but I can't even find that on Discogs, so I'm going to trim it unless you have any ideas there. Popcornduff (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems spurious to me. I can't find anything about a "You and Whose Army" promo single at all. All I could find was a page for such a single on RateYourMusic, which says there was a "Promo, Streaming" digital file single. I checked the correction history (an account's required to see this page) and the only source cited is... Wikipedia. Ix-nay. Good catch. —BLZ · talk 05:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Crossfader Magazine

In your opinion, is Crossfader Magazine a reliable source for music? [6] For example, could I use this review [7] as a source? Blueberry72 (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that there isn't enough on the site to determine if it's a reliable source. It does not have a staff page but the entry you link to discusses the reviewer, but he has not reviewed quite a while. Since Lust for Life (Lana Del Rey album) already has ten reviews from clearly reliable sources, I don't think another is needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I wanted use that review for Lust for Life's genre and its Composition section, but if the reliability of the website isn't clear, I suppose it's better not to cite it Blueberry72 (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Blueberry72: I dug a bit farther into Crossfader. Most of this goes beyond the scope of using it in the Lust for Life article, this is just my general opinion about their reliability. The site began in August 2015 and was discontinued in August 2018, according to this farewell op-ed from the editor.

There's an article about Crossfader published in 2016 by The Panther, which is Chapman University's official student newspaper (I would generally consider an official student newspaper at a major American university to be a reliable source). From that article:

• Crossfader was a publication founded and edited by a Chapman student, with a staff of about 25 student contributors.
• The article includes a positive assessment of the publication's quality from a professor (one who has published a book, which is just to say that the professor has some credibility and is not just a random cherry-picked adjunct or something like that).
• Crossfader conducted interviews with some bands signed to Burger Records, and the site's music features section shows that they conducted interviews with many other independent artists. Checking at random, some of their interview subjects were notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles: Melvins, Aaron Weaver of Wolves in the Throne Room, Jpegmafia, Aja (drag queen).
• Crossfader had a podcast in partnership with the university radio department, which suggests some level of institutional oversight and adherence to professional standards (i.e., someone was checking to make sure that they weren't swearing on the airwaves and that the show otherwise conformed to the university's standards of student conduct).

While Crossfader is now defunct, it was continued immediately by a new project with much of the same staff, Merry-Go-Round. The announcement of the first print issue of Merry-Go-Round says "we made some good pals over at the Fader last spring after a legal situation developed (water under the bridge!), and they were generous enough to give us a few tips and design suggestions to start our own run of bona fide tactile magazines." Here are Merry-Go-Round's About page and Staff masthead. According to his Twitter bio, the current music editor at Merry-Go-Round has been published elsewhere (at Collider and OC Weekly), and this same guy happens to be the writer of that Lana Del Ray review.

Based on all of the above, I think it would be appropriate to cite Crossfader for some limited purposes. It rises above a mere self-published source. It had editorial direction and oversight, and the transition into Merry-Go-Round shows that the staff have serious professional aspirations and standards. In general, I'd say any interviews on the site are credible for conveying the artist's statements. I agree with Walter Görlitz that the site's reviews should not be used in the "Professional ratings" infobox or (most) reception sections, although I think this is a question of notability rather than reliability. It's the same reason we wouldn't normally cite an (otherwise reliable) official college newspaper's review of a high-profile album, which is, who cares? But I think citing a review for purposes of describing an album's content would probably be fine. That is, it would be OK to cite the reviewer's observations and description of the music, but not the reviewer's opinion/assessment of the music's quality. However, I would not advise relying on Crossfader reviews for claims that are likely to be controversial/disputed in and of themselves.

Last thing: I see that there's a minor edit war going on over whether Lust for Life is a pop music album. I'd think it would be a fairly noncontroversial point that Lana Del Rey makes pop music, but unfortunately genre labelling in infoboxes always finds a way to become needlessly controversial. I skimmed the reviews in the ratings box and, if I were you Blueberry72, I would cite to the Rolling Stone and Telegraph reviews to demonstrate that it's a pop album. —BLZ · talk 22:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. If there's a notability problem, I think it would be unwise to cite Crossfader Magazine. Blueberry72 (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Make maintenance category more useful

Category:Music infoboxes with unknown value for type has served us well over the last few years. A number of editors have battled through the thousands of type errors that were listed in it, until only a handful now remain. The problem now though is that it has so many user-space pages listed in it, that finding actual main-space articles is the proverbial hunt for a needle in a haystack. Does anyone have any objections to not listing user-space pages in the category? - X201 (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Amarte Es un Placer (album) FAC

I have nominated Amarte Es un Placer (album) for FA and was wondering if anyone would care to comment on it. Thanks. Erick (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Extra chronology

Is the usage of extra chronology as seen in this article acceptable? It looks clutter-like and unneeded to me, considering that the soundtrack isn't the main topic. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely too much, because it's not strictly correct. Those should be the album chronologies, but as each artist has only contributed one or two songs to the album, it's not "their" album. The chronologies ought to be the songs on each soundtrack... but as these songs aren't individually notable, they don't need the extra chronology, especially as there's no indication that they were released as individual singles. Richard3120 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Yikes. Whether guidelines allow for it or not, I feel like you shouldn't want to do it that way. Its very overwhelming for the reader to look at. I don't think it'd be effective at all as is. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I have removed the template as per the consensus here. DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, this can be taken to generally apply to cases like this one here and this too, right? DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Result of RfC re: categorizing all works by an artist by genre

User:Robert McClenon has closed the RfC: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#RfC_on_categorizing_all_works_by_an_artist_by_genre. IMO, this means we should not be adding genre categories to categories like Category:Lady Gaga albums or Category:Lady Gaga songs. In past discussions, some editors took issue with this. I am wondering, how can we move forward, or what changes need to be made to album categories on a mass scale? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Update needed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice?

Any updates needed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice, based on the RfC result? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: FA nomination for Almost There (album)

Just a reminder to anyone interested: the article for Almost There (album) is up for featured article status. It is one of the best-selling Christian records of all time and a high-importance article in the area of Christian music, and any all project members are invited to comment on or review the nomination and help see if it fits the featured article criteria. The nomination is starting to lose attention and might be archived soon, so any comments are appreciated! Toa Nidhiki05 16:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

AllMusic genre sidebar

I honestly think the AllMusic genre sidebar can be used. I made a few edits trying to remove a genre from an album infobox because it was in that sidebar, then adding some genres from sources that I thought were reliable, but they have still been reverted. Do you think the AllMusic genre sidebar can now be used for genres, or should it remain unusable? This might lead to another serious debate, so before you decide your answer, please take your time....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

...You haven’t presented an actual reason to change our stance on this...You should probably start with your explanation on why you feel we should change our stance on this. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This section should explain a bit of the reason.... User talk:4TheWynne#Burn My Eyes SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

That was covered in the last discussion that's linked to (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 54#"Sources to avoid" section), where the proposal "The following sentence should be included: 'An exception to this is if there are no other reliable sources mentioning a song's genre'" is rejected. EddieHugh (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Eddie, that sentiment isn’t represented in that discussion. In fact, I say the opposite in it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Really? I did say that it "is rejected" in that discussion. EddieHugh (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I missed the rejected part at the end of your sentence. Yes, you’re correct, that proposal was rejected. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

SirZ, I’m still not seeing your exact rationale as to why it should be considered reliable. I only see you saying that’s itd be convenient to your efforts to source some genre...that’s not a valid reason. Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if I am understanding correctly but based on the discussion they linked I do not think SirZ is necessarily proposing that the guideline be changed but just asking for clarification, since their attempts to remove the Allmusic sidebar genres from an infobox were reverted by another user. I believe that other user is arguing that because there is allegedly no other source listing the genre, the Allmusic sidebar can be used as a fallback. I think what might be good is to clarify the guideline to explicitly state that the Allmusic sidebar should not be used, even as a fallback; right now it just says it "should be avoided" which is a bit ambiguous in this case. Boomur [☎] 19:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Unreliable - per our past discussions on this, and the fact that nothing has changed and no counter-argument has been proposed. One of our recent discussions on it showed that the sidebar stuff doesn’t even come from Allmusic, but rather, is farmed out and populated from some other source. I’m not finding the most recent discussion on it. Walter Görlitz, I think you were the one who discussed this in the past. Do you recall the discussion? Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Someone wrote that the "genre cloud" is machine-generated and not created by a human. If a review mentions a specific genre, then it is reliable, otherwise, don't dance with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable Per Walter. Unless Allmusic's reviewer mentions a genre, it should not be used, and the sidebar isn't reliable. Toa Nidhiki05 01:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Is an album release date "obvious" enough that a citation should be removed from an article?

There is a discussion open at Talk:Life After Death that I am hoping to get some input from people who are familiar with guidelines and conventions around music albums. In short, there is a dispute between an IP user who believes that a citation to the date that the album Life After Death was released should be removed from the article because the release date is so "obvious" that a citation isn't necessary. Two other editors (aside from myself) disagree either on the talk page conversation or in edit summaries to the article itself; we believe that there is no harm in leaving the citation where it is. Any input would be appreciated. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

If anyone finds it necessary, and it’s available, there is zero reason to not include it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I certainly disagree with that. We are not under an obligation to satisfy pointy pedantry merely because it was demanded by someone with an overly-fastidious understanding of empiricism. I'm not saying that is happening in this specific instance - I'm neutral on that score. As to the general question of whether album dates need to be sourced - if the year of release is on the release itself (the spine or the liner notes), it's catalog data of a published work, and shouldn't need a third-party citation (WP:SKYISBLUE). If it's not on the release, or if day-month-year date of release is in the article, I don't see any reason why a commercial link to an official release (WP:SELFPUB) can't provide that - I'm noticing many exhaustively-sourced song articles are sourcing digital release dates from places like Tidal and Spotify, which is reasonable given that release dates are rarely sites of controversy. In the absence of genuine, good-faith dispute about a release date (such as an actual disparity in the sources), that ought to be enough. Chubbles (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Chubbles: I was under the impression that the year quoted on an album's liner notes was the year the songs were copyrighted, and not necessarily the year the album was released. Richard3120 (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I ran a quick check earlier and only one source, AllMusic, had an actual release date for the album. It matched what was in the infobox. There have been, in the past, conflicting dates for album releases in various sources. They are also situations where an album is released in one market on an earlier date than others, or there are staggered releases. There are also instances where the work is released independently, then picked-up by a major label and re-released (as opposed to re-issued after re-mastering, etc.). In all of these cases, a referenced date is merited, at least in the article. I don't see that being the case for Life After Death, so it's not clear why the release date is contentious (see SKYISBLUE above). Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• support citation. What if a vandal puts in the wrong date and non-involved editors do not have a copy of the album and have no way to verify? Our music articles are filled with drive-by IP editors putting in all sort of WP:PROMO junk and making changes that are difficult to verify if you leave out citations. I strongly disagree that the release date of this album that most people have never heard of and don't care about is WP:SKYISBLUE. Just because YOU think it is a super important and exciting piece of work, doesn't mean the average person has ever heard of it or will ever hear of it. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If you are not familiar with the 'drive by IP editing' (by editors who often show zero respect for our sourcing rules) I am talking about, take a look at some of these version histories:

• Songland
• Maroon 5
• Red Pill Blues

--David Tornheim (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I replied on the album's talk page. The assertion is that it was released on "March 25, 1997". No physical album that I've seen gives an exact day of release. Maybe a reissue might give one for the original in its liner notes. SKYISBLUE for an exact date? Surely not. If someone challenges it, a source is required; this is basic policy (WP:BURDEN). Challenging an exact date seems reasonable to me: as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 58#AllMusic dates, there's no shortage of dates from a supposedly RS that are definitely wrong, so readers/editors are justified in asking where the information comes from. And there are the problems that Richard3120 and David Tornheim mention. EddieHugh (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll note that I did not state SKYISBLUE applies for an exact date. Chubbles (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support citation. There is nothing SKYBLUE about a release date: It's not "obvious" to people who don't have the physical album. This is simply Verifiability at work. Release years can be cited by the liner notes if no other source is available (hard to imagine though), but specific release dates absolutely need reliable sources. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It's also not obvious to people who have the physical album either as there is usually only a year, which isn't always the year of the album's release. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Does that mean that liner notes shouldn't be used at all as RS for release years? SteveStrummer (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that they could be used for the release year, provided that other RSes don't contradict that, but I think we're trying to narrow the complete date. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is akin to saying we can't use the publication page of a book to confirm the author or the year of release of that book, or the name of the publisher. Yes, it's not obvious if you don't own the physical book, but we do not need an Internet source to meet WP:V, and I can't imagine it is useful to anyone to be putting in citations for the physical album if just the year (as opposed to day-month-year, which would require external sourcing) is included. If the consensus is that this citation arms-race is both required and preferable...well, I'm sure Aristophanes would be proud. Chubbles (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yet, feel free to show me the release date on any liner note. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support citation Should not be difficult to find. It’s not always obvious. Toa Nidhiki05 18:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Chubbles: unfortunately, as I mentioned above, the year given on an album's liner notes is not the year of release, but the year of copyright of the songs on the album. Obviously in most cases these will be the same year, but the problems arise for albums released in the first couple of weeks of January, where clearly the albums have been pressed some weeks before (i.e. the previous year) in order to have them ready for distribution. A good example of this is Little Earthquakes by Tori Amos, which was released in the UK and Europe in the first week of January 1992, some two months ahead of its release in the US and Canada. Depending on the pressing plant, some copies of the album state "1991" on the liner notes, some state "1992", and others even have one date on the liner notes and a different year on the LP/CD itself. So no, the year printed on the liner notes is not always a reliable source for the year of release. Richard3120 (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Unassessed articles tagged as stubs

Hi. Currently, Category:Unassessed Album articles has over 21,000 pages in it. Of those, around 1350 are currently tagged as stubs. Would the wikiproject support or object to a bot assessing all of those pages as stub-class? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I worry that they will remain perma-stubs and might actually be better served with a PROD. I can't imagine that all 1350 meet NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem with PRODding them all is that there are definitely notable albums among them... for example, just scanning the first page of the category alone, I can see Holidays in Eden, an album by the very notable British rock band Marillion, which has two reliable reviews (there are certainly more out there) and reached the top ten in three European countries.

I've started going through all the unassessed album articles (there's about 65,000 of them) and trying to tag them for class and importance, but it's a project of several years' work, no doubt about that. Richard3120 (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Holidays in Eden had several problems, and it was far from a stub! Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with you assessing them automatically as stubs but please be sure to use the parameter "auto=yes" so that they are placed in Category:Automatically assessed Albums articles. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Starcheer, also there are stubs that are more notable than FA articles, such as Spending the Night Together so stubs should be judged individually as per WP:NEXIST

thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: there isn't a Wikipedia article with that title, so I'm not sure which album you are referring to. Anyway, I've been finding that very few of these albums are genuinely unequivocally non-notable... many of them seem to be country music albums that have never been rated, but almost all have charted on the Billboard Country Albums chart, and many of them on the Billboard 200 as well, so they certainly pass WP:NALBUM. Richard3120 (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The AU Review

I'd like to propose adding Australian publication The AU Review to the list of sources. Contributors/editors include:

• Larry Heath,[8] who founded the website in 2008, wrote four books and had work featured in Spin and Rolling Stone.
• Katelyn Rew[9] is the editor for The Australia Times, and has contributed to Love & List and Style Wanderer.
• Philippe Perez[10] has written for Rabelais, Upstart and CAAMA.
• Sosefina Fuamoli[11] has worked for Rolling Stone Australia, The Guardian, Beat and Triple J.
• Bec Mac[12] has worked at ABC.
• Justine McNamara[13] has worked at Network Ten, InTheMix, FasterLouder and The South Sydney Herald.
• Nicole Wedding[14] has worked for Broadsheet and The Independent Weekly.
• Helen Scheuerer[15][16] has written two books, and has worked for Voiceworks and Tertangala.
• Aidan Hogg[17] has worked for FasterLouder.
• David Smith[18] has worked for PC World Australia.
• Clare Armstrong[19] (having to trust the google search for this as I'm out of previews to verify) has worked for The Daily Telegraph, The Music, FasterLouder and Renowned for Sound.
• Mairéad Bilton-Gough[20] has written for The Australia Times and FasterLouder.

I would've likely been able to list a few more if I didn't run out of free previews on LinkedIn. Yeepsi (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - per above. I’ve used the site historically without issue as well. Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support: it's not a publication I've ever used myself, but I've come across it in the past and I haven't seen any problems regarding its reliability. Richard3120 (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the staff have good credentials Atlantic306 (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support I've used the source every now and then and they seem very reliable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Featured article nomination for Almost There (album)

I’ve renominated Almost There (album), a mid-importance article in this project, for Wikipedia:Featured article. Any editors are welcome to add to the discussion at the nomination page. Toa Nidhiki05 13:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Identity Theory on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Identity Theory on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is Identity Theory an RS?. — Newslinger talk 09:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Evermore

Who are the female voices on ""Battle of Evermore"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kecabron (talk • contribs) 11:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kecabron: not sure why you are asking here, but as the article says, Sandy Denny supplied guest vocals for the song. Richard3120 (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at Songs project

Can anyone give perspective here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Release_history? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Relevant CfD

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_4#Albums_by_genre_and_decade_categories ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Stand-up comedy albums

Are stand-up comedy albums spoken word albums? They are typically live recordings of someone's stand up comedy act and they are never nominated for spoken word album awards. Yes, there are many comedy recordings that are spoken word but I don't think stand up qualifies. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Correct, spoken word generally means more like poetry or general story-telling, not comedy. Sergecross73 msg me 22:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

7-inch EP

Not sure if this is a right place to ask but does a 7-inch EP mean it's really an EP? Because in Crying in the Club, there is an 7-inch EP with two songs that has Side A and Side B. And is it also part of the album chronology? Raritydash (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd call that a single – one track on each side of a 7" vinyl record, that's the traditional vinyl single format. And it was only a limited release exclusively available from Urban Outfitters (not exactly known as a record store) and judging by this tweet, they think it might even be an LP... hardly consistent. I'm guessing there's no independent sources describing it as a single, an EP or even an LP... I'd just say it's a limited format of the single, and not part of any album chronology. Richard3120 (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand. And as far I understand, I've been trying to remove Crying in the Club from "Camila (album)" from the album chronology but the other user thinks that it's an EP, which I agree that it's not and the user restore it. What would I do about it? Raritydash (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we need some other editors to weigh in here and try and establish a consensus. But as far as I can see, this supposed EP was just a limited edition promotional 7" vinyl, only available from a single outlet (a clothing store), and featuring two previously released songs. And we don't have any independent or reliable sources describing it as an EP or an official part of the chronology. Richard3120 (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Differentiating between promo singles, singles, maxi-singles, EP, and albums is always confusing haha. But why is this situation?! An A side and a B side is a single! What?! And it's 7-inch?! What's going on here lol. Since when is that an EP? It seems like the record company just decided to add another song on a special promotional (Urban Outfitters) physical edition of "Crying in the Club". This is not a Drake situation where two songs are present, but together they are called something different, like Scary Hours or something. This is a vinyl record with an A side and a B side. Since when is that NOT a single? Haha. No, it shouldn't be apart of an album chronology. Heartfox (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of an RfC about including the word "The" in song/album article titles

Hello there! I started a discussion on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music on 7 July, and it hasn't received any responses. This RfC concerns the use of the word "The" in band names in parentheses in the titles of articles about songs and albums. Further elaboration can be found on that discussion page. I would appreciate thoughts from anyone who may be interested in the discussion. Thank you. –Matthew - (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"off vocal ver." text in track listing

In Japanese albums, it's sometimes common to have an instrumental version of songs at the end of albums, listed as an "off vocal ver.", as per this and this article. What would be the correct way to put this in the track listing template: in the "notes" parameter (the former), or as written (the latter)? ◢ Ganbaruby! 06:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Notes. That's appropriate for (Demo) or (Radio Edit) or (Live in Indianapolis, November 18, 1982) or whatever else isn't the actual title of the song. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Link Broken

Not sure what's wrong here. Can someone fix this, please? I've tried running this through Wayback machine but something went wrong.Timur9008 (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Travelogue:_Blues_Traveler_Classics&action=history

Here are the URL(S)

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/%60%60Travelogue:+Blues+Traveler+Classics,

https://web.archive.org/web/20130602220950/http://www.thefreelibrary.com/%60%60Travelogue%3a+Blues+Traveler+Classics%2c+Band's+First+%60%60Best+Of...-a092735445

I think the problem is that the full URL has been cut short and replaced by "a092735445", but it might also be the format of the quotation marks... Muhandes might be able to solve the problem here. Richard3120 (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Muhandes Can you assist us here? Timur9008 (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Timur9008: I used {{urlencode}} and seems seemed to have resolved it. --Muhandes (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Muhandes: Thanks! Timur9008 (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of reviewer ratings from album guides and music reference books in the ratings box

Could I get some clarity on this: I recently added star ratings from Colin Larkin's Encyclopedia of Popular Music in all the album articles for Siouxsie and the Banshees. Rather mindlessly, I admit – adding the rating each time, but no prose. Carliertwo has just removed them all, eg [21], and ratings from a Christgau album guide also, it seems, saying that they're "not album reviews". In the case of Downside Up, I figured the ratings box could well use some more formal ratings, given that three entries there carry a subjective comment ("very favourable"), something I'd seen at several of the band's album articles.

Strictly speaking, they're not album reviews, and nor are the ratings in The Rolling Stone Album Guide. Although, as in guides such as the MusicHound series or those by Martin C. Strong, there is an essay on the artist's career or some other commentary to go with each album. So, do most editors only use dedicated reviews? JG66 (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I use that sort of non-review reception in reception sections, but usually just in the prose, not the review box. That’s just me though, I’m not sure if that’s a preferred approach or anything. I think I’ve usually done that in more rare articles, where there haven’t been many eyes to approve or reject either way. Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why not; I see no categorical reason to exclude them from the reviews box. Distinguishing between encyclopedias/guides and periodicals may be worth teasing out in prose for contextual reasons—especially, e.g., to clarify when a particular assessment was published long after the album was released. Rolling Stone Album Guide scores are commonly found, Christgau is nearly ubiquitous (there seems to be a recent trend toward crediting Christgau under the Village Voice or whichever publication he was writing for at the time rather than under his own name, but even more recently I've seen attribution to the specific guide, which is more accurate if the cited review or score was previously unpublished or a version that had been revised for one of his books).

And, after all, what is AllMusic if not an online reference book? It was a series of print guides before it was a website, and most if not all older reviews are just ported from an original entry from one of those books. Sure, they update frequently and publish new reviews like a periodical would, but they don't date their reviews—it's meant to be taken as an online guide or reference, not as an online magazine.

Sergecross73 mentioned that he tends to add these scores to obscure albums, which is a great example of why these scores can be useful to cite: even if they're not in the prose (yet), they at least point in the right direction for someone else to seek it out and find it later. These reviews are especially useful for those obscure albums that may have fewer reviews otherwise and, conversely, for albums are enormously famous and important (because they can be used to show trends in critical judgment over time). I also think Sergecross73 is right that these scores don't necessarily have to be added to the review box just because they're in the prose. It may be odd for one reason or another—for instance, if there's only one retrospective review among a bunch of contemporary reviews. That's not necessarily wrong, and it's probably not misleading, but there may be circumstances where it's not the best way to present the information. Idk if I was the first to do this, but I chose to use multiple, differently labeled review boxes in OK Computer to distinguish scores that were contemporaneous, retrospective, or reviewing a special edition. If I hadn't been able to label them differently I may have decided to just exclude the latter two boxes of scores (and I would have especially done so if it meant jamming together scores published at wildly different times). So inclusion can be discretionary, but I don't know why we'd adopt a policy of mandatory exclusion. —BLZ · talk 20:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

When there isn't any prose and explanation, the rating looks like an arbitrary / random rating from a writer who rates tons of records for a book. That's the case for Colin Larkin's Encyclopedia of Popular Music at the Siouxsie and the Banshees entry[22]. When Christau gives a rating with a three line review, the reader understands his view. An encyclopedia provides content: it is no use of including a random rating with no text to support it. @ Sergecross73 & Brandt Luke Zorn.___ Carliertwo (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

BLZ: Your point about assessments from guides or reference books being useful for very-well known albums "to show trends in critical judgment over time" – that's really where I'm coming from on this issue, and it's what I'd thought was commonly done across the encyclopedia. I've long had the impression that the inclusion of ratings from Larkin's book and The Rolling Stone Album Guide are near-ubiquitous here, because they give a picture of an album's place relative not just to the artist's other albums but to every major artist's work. Often, that provides an interesting contrast with the dedicated reviews, where timing and trendiness/relevance can strongly influence how the album's judged by writers.

I'm not waving any flag for Colin Larkin especially, but he and his contributors do approach the subject in the wide context of popular music as a whole, which is a useful indicator. The music mags are very cool and often very influential; the reference books can be a bit stuffy but The Encyclopedia of Popular Music is seen as authoritative and carries some weight. With those Banshees album ratings, as I said above, I was on autopilot ("Rather mindlessly, I admit – adding the rating each time, but no prose") and haven't looked at Larkin's text on the band; but I'd be very surprised if there wasn't some review-like, critical appraisal for a few of their albums. Same in The Rolling Stone Album Guide, MusicHound's various genre-specific "Essential Album Guide"s, Strong's The Great Rock Discography or some of the Rough Guides music books: it's often the case that some albums by the artist are brushed aside with only the briefest of mentions, whereas others, perhaps those considered either extremely significant/good or extremely bad within the artist's career, are given much more attention. But (and this is what I mean by the near-ubiquitous aspect for Larkin's Encyclopedia of Popular Music), the rating is still usually included in all our ratings boxes for that artist, no matter what.

If none of Larkin's ratings for the Banshees albums have a place on the grounds that they're not reviews, then there's an awful lot of ratings from him and from those other reference books that don't belong either, right? That's the situation I'm trying to clarify. JG66 (talk) 08:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Single not included in album?

In Nikki (album), it is said that the song "I Believe" is a single from that album, but this song is not included in the album. Is this normal? --Joseki546 (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

In what capacity “is it said”? Knowing that may help me answer you a little bit better. I can think of a number of songs where the single version was pretty different from the album version - acoustic versions being re-recorded into full-band versions (Rain (Breaking Benjamin song), Nothing More’s Just Say When, Foo Fighters Walking After You) and times where they changed featuring artists due to legal reasons (Santana’s Why Don't You & I) but I’m not thinking of any where it didn’t show up at all. Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It's available as a bonus track on the Canadian version of the album only [23]. The Nikki Yanofsky articles have in the past been the subject of a lot of promotional puffery, and many of the less notable singles have been redirected to the parent albums. Someone has added this information, without listing the bonus tracks available on various versions of the album (the European version also has a bonus track, but a different one), which is why the confusion has arisen. Richard3120 (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Album of the Year

This website have been added in several articles like, Bandana, ?, 17, and Schlagenheim. Is this website count as reliable or not? The website is similar to other review aggregator websites such as Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic? So I wonder it's okay to have this website in these articles or just remove it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought it was okay, actually, based on the list of critical publications used (see here down the right-hand side of the page for included publications, which are pretty much the same ones used as reliable sources on Wikipedia already). But we should get a consensus and formal acceptance here first. Richard3120 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed about discussing first - if I recall, I think there was pushback on getting ADM on there, just on the grounds of redundancy. The video games wikiproject also often has debates on “how many aggregators are too many” between Metacritic, GameRankings and OpenCritic. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: @Sergecross73: The reason for this question because some IP have been adding this website in several articles [24][25][26][27] and nobody seems to have a problem with it. I asked Dan56 about this but never got a response. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The site's scores correspond to those by ADM and Metacritic, but unlike those two sites, it does not offer information about how it works; FAQ page says "coming soon". And there's very little third-party-source mention of the site that validates it as reliable or noteworthy. Dan56 (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dan56: I'm guilty of adding this website too because nobody seems to have a problem with it. The website have been added in several articles recently and nobody didn't remove it or question the website's reliably. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: @Sergecross73: @Dan56: I have remove the website off the articles because of what Holiday56 says with this edit. If the website is user-generated, it's unreliable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't aware that there was a formal discussion on this – but yes, I've removed it recently off certain articles on the basis that for the most part it seems user-generated (the critic scores on album pages, among other information, appear to be added by the site's users – note the "Contributions By" box on the right sidebar of an album page) and thus falls under WP:UGC. The concerns raised by Dan56 re. reliability of the site itself are also worth noting. Holiday56 (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the discussion here either, kudos to TheAmazingPeanuts for the tip. My impression was that the site's critic scores were generated in a similar fashion to Metacritic and other aggregators, but if these aggregations are based on user submissions that presents WP:UGC-type problems—like, what if users only gather the positive or (the negative) reviews for a somewhat-obscure album, resulting in a skewed score? It does look like scores are added by users; taking this page as an example, there's a link "Add Critic Rating" that leads to this page, which (for me) says "Must be a registered user to add critic ratings to the site. Click here to sign up."

I'm assuming there must be some internal standards to determine which publications qualify for inclusion—users can add Pitchfork scores but not their personal Blogspot, etc. In other words, this isn't unbounded user creation like Wikipedia or even IMDb: users could temporarily skew a score, but they couldn't manipulate it into whatever they want (like they could with a campaign to boost or tank a user score). That said, I'm satisfied that AOTY is user-generated. Still, it remains a handy informal resource to find reviews since most of the publications it aggregates are reliable sources under our standards. —BLZ · talk 22:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox album producer parameter discussion

Coolmarc has asked a question about who should be included in the |producer= parameter of {{Infobox album}} at its talk page. Please join the discussion about it there. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

uDiscover Music

uDiscover is used a fair bit already in our music articles, and there are a couple of pieces I'd like to use. I can't find any record of a previous discussion here – does anyone see it as problematic or unreliable?

The site has an impressive list of contributors from the UK and US, imo. (Ones I'm most familiar with: top UK music journos such as Max Bell, Spencer Bright, Martin Chilton, Jason Draper, Emily Mackay, Ian McCann, Paul McGuinness, Joel McIver, Paul Sexton, David Sinclair; other writers I know well from Record Collector and other print and online publications are Jamie Atkins and Oregano Rathbone.) The only thing that might be a problem is, as stated on that contributors page, it's "operated by Universal Music Group". Any thoughts out there? JG66 (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Alternative Vision (alternativevision.co.uk) on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Alternative Vision ([alternativevision.co.uk]), specifically its reviews of nu metal. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Alternative Vision. — Newslinger talk 12:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC concerning removal of Blender magazine accolade

RfC is open, concerning whether this should be removed: Blender magazine's ranking of Emerson, Lake & Palmer as among the 50 worst bands ever. A thread from 2009-10 is being cited as a consensus to remove its mention, and editors from that thread have been pinged in what appears to be a canvassing effort. So please chime in, especially if you have no emotional ties to the band's music and are more concerned with Wikipedia guidelines and policies and core values and so on. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Amarte Es un Placer FAC

I have nominated Amarte Es un Placer (album) for FAC. My last nomination failed due to a lack of activity and I would appreciate comments on the article. Thanks! Erick (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"Released" parameter and future dates

Please see Template talk:Infobox album#"Released" parameter and future dates about whether the parameter that says "Released" can be used for future dates. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Chronologies

I was prompted by a recent comment "chronologies (for singles and albums) are pretty much music-exclusive – they're not at all in keeping with the rest of the encyclopedia." Based on a quick review, they are not used for books by popular authors, films by directors, musicals, etc. Previous and next works are often included in a navbox at the bottom of the page, such as Template:The Black Keys. Some albums include multiple chronologies for several participants, which can overwhelm the article. Why should chronologies be included, when infoboxes are supposed to "summarize key features of the page's subject" (MOS:INFOBOX)? Or is this another case of "it's done that way because that's how we do it". —Ojorojo (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I would ask why they should not be included. Why do we need yet another rule? How is this consensus harming the project?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing a parameter is not introducing a new rule, but would be consistent with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE (an existing guideline): "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 ... exclude any unnecessary content." Multiple chronologies may overwhelm a short article, giving it an unbalanced, amateurish appearance. Since the goal is key facts, the better questions would be "is this a key fact?" or "how is this adding to the understanding of the album?". —Ojorojo (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

We have Navboxes, see also, Succession Boxes and various other methods of introducing readers to new content without the requirement to search; musical artist chronologies being featured in infoboxes is really just an extension of that ideology. I suppose the navigation assistance could be removed from the infoboxes and placed on the page in a separate box, but that could just make things worse (clutter and "infobox warriors" having an entirely new toy to play with). Personally, I'd like to revisit my suggestion of some months (or years; I lose track) ago, of adding a direct link to infoboxes about music to the related artist's discography. More links! \o/ Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia reader, I find the chronologies very helpful.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

As do I - I find it interesting to see, at a quick glance, if much time elapsed before or after released in comparison to prior or subsequent releases. We don’t require uniformity between all infobox types, so I don’t see an issue here. I feel like there are better things to do than spending time removing and enforcing a change on this. Sergecross73 msg me 11:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Coming here as the editor who wrote that comment "chronologies (for singles and albums) are pretty much music-exclusive ..." in a recent conversation with Ojorojo. To give some background, (I believe) it was SMcClandish who raised this issue, years ago, when we were all discussing the inclusion of album track-listing templates and other forms of track-listing information appearing in song infoboxes. I didn't think the chronologies were a problem back then, but I do now.

My concerns are mostly confined to singles chronologies in song articles: how they extend the infobox down into the main body of the article (particularly where there are multiple chronologies, obviously), and add to the sheer bulk of the thing when a sample and a YouTube clip also appear; and how this can be repeated later in the article for cover versions of a song. In some cases, the cover version is notable but it merits just a line or two of discussion in the text, yet because of the artist's singles chronology, it's as if an infobox has to appear for each single release to ensure the chronological chain works across the encyclopedia. Again, these cover-version infoboxes can overwhelm the section, not to mention giving a recording a visual presence that vastly outweighs its coverage in prose, and the infobox(es) with single artwork can extend well into the following section, perhaps into the article's references.

This is all songs-focused, I know – it's not as if an album article carries infoboxes for cover or tribute recordings of the album – although it overlaps with albums on the point of multiple chronologies. And, in case it needs saying, second (or third) chronologies don't just come about through multi-artist albums/singles; they can also be included when a band member has a concurrent solo career or has released collaborations with artists outside of the band's work. Chronologies are useful, yes, and especially because we're so used to seeing them. But it's hardly crucial information – they don't define the subject, and for most established artists, there's a navbox providing this info anyway. JG66 (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@JG66: What are you proposing exactly? You'd like to see them removed or limited in number or scope across the project, or case-by-case? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 09:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry: I'm strongly in favour of removing singles chronologies from song articles because of the problems mentioned (I was trying to limit the songs focus above, but another problem caused by long infoboxes relates to MOS:SANDWICHING, because elements such as images and quote boxes are compromised by the encroachment). And I'm in favour of removing them from album articles because of those cases with multiple chronologies, because the info can be and often is given in a navbox, and to be consistent with what I'm proposing for songs. JG66 (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to removing song or singles chronologies, at least in complex instances.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Navboxes at the bottom already have album links arranged chronologically. They have the additional benefit of showing all of the artist's albums, not just previous and next. A discography linked in the navbox would provide more details. Removing chronologies from the infoboxes would be very simple: remove the parameter coding and they disappear from view. A bot could later remove the deprecated parameters. It wouldn't require a new rule and there would be nothing to enforce. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Not quite the same concept. A chronology lists the previous and next album with year, whether the subject has an article or not. Navboxes should not list non-articles and they quite often do not have years. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

True, but if a chief benefit is navigation (as per Fred G.), unlinked albums in a chronology are unhelpful. Release dates and other details are a click away on the discography. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox citations

I'm curious to know what the Wikiproject's guidelines are for verifiability in infoboxes. Some of the fields - Recording dates, Studio, and Release dates - are very frequently not verified, or even mentioned, in the article at all. Don't they need to be? I know there is the concept of WP:INFOBOXCITE but this kind of specific info doesn't seem "obvious" or even easy to research. Recording dates and Studios are often not found in liner notes. So should this stuff be accepted without citations or removed? SteveStrummer (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

They should be cited in the body when mentioned. Toa Nidhiki05 21:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

And removed if they aren't? SteveStrummer (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. That goes for everything and anything. If it’s not sourced in the article somewhere, it shouldn’t be in the article at all. That said, editors can alternatively decide to add “citation needed” tags if they feel the info is relatively uncontentious and likely to have a source be found and supplied someday. Sergecross73 msg me 02:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that the purpose of the infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article"... if it's not included (and sourced) somewhere in the article text, it shouldn't be in the infobox. If the liner notes or other reliable sources don't state recording dates or studios, that's too bad. Richard3120 (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

that's too bad *chuckle and thumbs up* Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

There are many general pieces of information that really don't need a reference. The album length, producer, label, etc. Release dates should be. Studio is often discussed in the liner notes and should be mentioned in the article as such. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, 100% agreed--it is generally something that is verifiable in the work itself. It can be assumed that the album will tell you about the album as that is very common. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Most of the infobox can be confirmed from the album cover, AllMusic etc without refbombing the infobox or removing or tagging obviously verifiable info Atlantic306 (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I didn't ask about fields that could be cited by the album notes. I specifically want to know about the fields that are rarely or never included in album notes: Studio; Recording dates; Release dates. I take it everyone agrees that these fields require citations in the body? SteveStrummer (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Studio and recording dates are quite often discussed in the liner notes. Release date is not, unless you're dealing with a reissue, but it is frequently sourced elsewhere and should be sourced in the article. When studio and recording dates are not discussed in the liner notes, a RS should be provided in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      • We can't give a free pass to Recording dates and Studio when they happen to be in the liner notes. If that info is not standard and expected on albums, then it always has to be cited, even if it's just with Cite AV Media Notes. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Fine. Go off and enforce that, but do go off. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
        • You are right - if it can’t be sourced, it doesn’t belong. But there’s truth to what Walter says too - it is commonly found info. So it probably wouldn’t be productive to mass-remove every instance of it either, as it is commonly mentioned in liner notes or interviews about the album creation process. Sergecross73 msg me 03:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
          • I'm not going to make mass edits. I only want to see this wikiproject post clear guidelines for these 3 common fields which so far seem unique in their ability to remain free of citations. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
            • We're discussing the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy here, right? You're argument comes from an essay. In short, not everything does need an explicit reference. We're not stating that these three common fields do not need to be verifiable, only that if they are questioned, they should be. Most of the time, they can be easily sourced from liner notes, AllMusic (although some release dates there have been shown to be problematic) or one of several other sources. If there's a real problem, leave it blank. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

GA being reviewed

Hi! I'm reviewing Talk:7/27, but the nominator is AWOL. There isn't much really to look at, but I'm not prepared to promote in it's current state. Anyone fancy fixing the few things wrong with the article to get it promoted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Why do we note all-caps stylisation?

Ringerfan23 edited the MiniDiscs (Hacked) article to note that the album title is stylised in all caps (diff). I reverted it, because I think uppercase stylisation is so commonplace to be not worth mentioning. Ringerfan23 reverted the revert with the edit summary: Not trivial at all; it's mentioned on every page where the casing deviates from the normal (such as When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?, Amo (album), Astroworld (album), Skins (album), ect ect.) pretty standard stuff.

Pretty standard stuff for album articles, seemingly, but only album articles. Nobody feels the urge to note that the titles The Terminator or The Legend of Zelda are written in all caps in logos, cover art, posters and so on, nor that the title of A Tale of Two Cities is written in all caps on its first page and therefore is presumably the "correct" title. So why do we care so much about it in album titles?

You might argue that we should reflect sources, but in the case of Minidiscs [Hacked], at least, every source I’ve bothered to check uses the normal casing: Guardian, Rolling Stone, Telegraph, Slate, NME, LA Times, Irish Times.

In fact the same seems to be almost universally true for the other albums Ringerfan23 mentions when it comes to all caps. The sources I checked are:

• When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go: NME PitchforkGuardian Rolling Stone
• Astroworld: Pitchfork NME Independent Rolling Stone Spin
• Skins: Pitchfork NME Vulture (exception number one) Consequence of Sound (exception number two) Guardian

I haven’t cherrypicked these examples, btw. Of the results from the first page of searching for “Album title” + review on Google, I didn’t see a single source that wrote these album titles in all caps, with the two exceptions for Skins, marked above. I didn’t look after the second page.

Can we stop doing this for albums, please? Popcornduff (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Popcornduff, 100% agree. All caps is a completely non-controversial styling and is so extremely common on things like album covers that anything else would be noteworthy if anything. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree as well – I've just seen this article today and have no idea why the "all caps" is mentioned, when the artist's name is in exactly the same font. Surely it's only worth mentioning for titles where there is some deviation from the norm, like certain letters capitalised where you wouldn't expect them to be, or certain letters replaced by numbers, for example? Richard3120 (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Richard3120, Sure. Or if you have a track listing and you have "Song Number One", "Song Number Two" , "SONG NUMBER THREE". Or maybe if you have all of the liner notes in lower case and the album title is uppercase but even then, that's just a typographical note to mention in a section on artwork, not at the lead. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: yes of course... for example, I can think of "Giant", the closing track on Soul Mining, which is in capital letters on the sleeve notes and label of the album while the other songs are written in standard format, and in fact in this case I could probably find an RS explaining why Matt Johnson wanted that particular track to have "all caps". But I was just sticking to albums for now, because as Popcornduff notes, this particular trait only seems to affect album articles. Richard3120 (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m 100% against it as well. I’m happy to see others against it, as I frequently feel like I’m the bad guy reprimanding people about this. There’s no reason to point out blatantly obvious things like being in all caps or all lower case. Readers aren’t generally idiots - they can make this connection on their own. Please let’s make this a guideline so I’m not always the bad guy... Sergecross73 msg me 00:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sergecross73, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Albums%2FAlbum_article_style_advice&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=914367828&oldid=894582640 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

What if it's promoted that way and recognized by media in such a way? I can see why you guys want this and mostly agree with you, but what if this is the case, or specific songs are distinctly in all caps and others aren't? dannymusiceditor ^oops 00:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, Don't let the thing I wrote about songs distract (that's my bad). What's an example of this happening that isn't with an initialism or some constructed word? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

What scenario is the explanation actually necessary though? I mean, let’s say an artist releases a song called “Very Fun Days”. Why would the reader ever need an explanation on stylization about it being promoted as “VERY FUN DAYS” or “very fun days”. I just don’t understand the scenario where people see these stylizations are are somehow unable to identify the song. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Now I see your point more clearly than before. I guess it's just a consistency thing in my eyes that I've grown accustomed to. Wikipedia sticks to the way sources style stuff, right? Say on an album they decide to specifically single out one or two songs for all caps. The one example I can think of is BMTH's Amo, where all but "Mantra" are all lowercase, and the former is in all caps. I see now that there's something to note it, but the contrast is an interesting thing to note in my opinion. People are making all sorts of weird stylizations and I'm just trying to be prepared. I don't see a scenario where these stylizations get in the way of identification, either, so it doesn't bother me a ton, just cases like these I suspect may become more common and I wanted to be prepared. Do you at least see what I mean? dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I do know what you mean. I’ve generally conceded that if there’s any sourced commentary on the meaning or significance of the stylization, it was worth including, though I can’t recall any examples of it done right off the top of my head. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I see this as a matter of WP:DUE weight; if the sources make an explicit fuss about the casing of the title anything then we should discuss it but, "discuss" doesn't ever mean "emulate" i.e. just because a word is notably cased unusually, doesn't mean we should adjust our write up beyond providing a clear example i.e. "Sources state that Foobar always display their names as 'f00bAR' on promotional materials..." is surely how an encyclopedia should describe that aspect of an entity if it's really that important. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 07:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I stand with Fred Gandt's position completely. dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: @Koavf: @Richard3120: @Sergecross73: @DannyMusicEditor: @Fred Gandt: While I mostly agreed with you guys but it's in the guidelines per MOS:TMSTYLE. Ringerfan23 was kinda following the guidelines by adding the stylized version in the lead section. Since mostly everybody agreed that the stylized version is unnecessary, should the guidelines be changed? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: The MOS:TMSTYLE guideline says we should call out "capitalization changes", but I'm not sure everybody agrees that simply writing everything in all caps is sufficiently unusual to qualify as a "change", if you see what I mean. As I said before, seemingly no one needs to be told this for articles about films, novels, games, or other media. I'd support a guideline change somewhere, but this seems to be a WP:ALBUMS problem. Popcornduff (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, I wonder how MOS:TMSTYLE applies to ellipsis in titles, as in this talk page debate at ...And Justice for All (album). Popcornduff (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Like anyone ever went into a record shop and asked for a copy of "ellipsis and justice for all" :D Amazon UK's first result was the correct album with no ellipsis when I tried it just now, and Google doesn't return a "Did you mean..." if the ellipsis is omitted when searching. [I]f I were king of the world (to borrow a phrase), I'd remove the ellipsis from the article title and all the prose, and make a small note that there should be one where stylized. As an encyclopedia, we should be documenting reality as we find it, not deciding what reality should be based on arbitrary guides, and presenting those facts in as clear and a digestible was as possible. wRIt1nG w0rDz |N uny00zy00@L WaZ3 throughout the prose of an article isn't documentation, it's just plain weird. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Fred Gandt Agreed. Popcornduff (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: What about lowercase notes such as Beerbongs & Bentleys, and articles like Damn and Good Kid, M.A.A.D City. Should we remove the stylized notes too? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

My gut instinct is that lowercase is kinda like uppercase - such a common stylisation for cover art etc it's not worth drawing attention to. Other things, like weird punctuation, are maybe unusual enough to point out in prose, but I'd also like to see them reflected in sources. Whatever the case, I would never want to see the stylisation used in the article proper. Popcornduff (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, Popcornduff: good kid, m.A.A.d city would be an example where I'd keep the stylization intact—not to use it throughout, sure, but at least to present the formally "correct" italicization at the start in parentheses. Unlike most of these cases, where the use of lower/uppercase is strictly a graphic design element and signifies nothing beyond "ALL LOUD" or "all quiet", the lettering choice is very particular—why just the A's, why are the dots where they are? There's, arguably, strong thematic significance that ties into the over-arching concept. (Kendrick has "explained" the title's "actual meaning", but his explanation doesn't account for "A.A." He also didn't mention the obvious reference to Compton-based WC and the Maad Circle, so there are clearly more dimensions of meaning than what he disclosed. Personally, I think "My Angel's on Angel Dust" makes sense because it's close to an actual lyric, but "My Angry Adolescence Divided" seems like a backronym that he could have come up with at any point.) Regardless there's clearly some thought and intent and meaning behind the lettering that goes beyond mere stylization. Contrast Fred Gandt's well-chosen Sex Pistols example below, where the random lettering carries no significance at all aside from randomness itself (and even then, strictly as a visual element). Not to mention, Kendrick's "stylized" title is very widely used by the press and in other commentary—that's also true for many all-caps titles, too, but in this case I think the press usage plus the thematic significance mean it should be rendered the intended way at least once. —BLZ · talk 05:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

If you can source any of that it would be great for your argument, otherwise it's a perfect example of original research. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 12:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: lol. I uh, was agreeing with you? And even gave you kudos for your comment below? Yes I'm aware of bedrock Wikipedia policy on original research, thanks. You may have noticed that we're on a talk page discussing policy for a WikiProject, not editing the article mainspace. I'm not asserting those points here as absolute encyclopedic truth—I even indicated which parts were just my own personal interpretation, for crying out loud. I was just trying to illustrate that, in principle, a uniquely capitalized title (i.e., not just a stylistic all-caps or all-lowercase) can carry subtle shades of meaning that may otherwise be lost. Whether he was actually thinking about Alcoholics Anonymous is immaterial. That meaning could be there (it's a concept album narratively structured on a redemption arc involving alcoholism, so...). Other meanings may be there, too. The point is, there can be meanings and resonances beyond the ones that are obvious or already-on-the-record, which is precisely why we should present unique title renderings such as this one at least once in their article.

Anyway: when Lamar announced the album title, he said the "'CORRECT' title" (his emphasis, not mine) is good kid, m.A.A.d city (Pitchfork, though this trivially easy to find and could be sourced from any number of other publications that reported the same news, just google "'kendrick lamar' 'correct title'"). It's not "stylized", because the capitalization is not being done for "style". The capitalization is neither arbitrary nor a retrofit from how it happened to be spelled in a graphic design. It is the formal title of the album. All other renderings, including use of title case, are filtering the actual title through a manual of style. Which, again: is fine! It's totally fine! Sometimes compelling artistic intent still has to bow to conformity with a publication's manual of style. I cannot emphasize enough how much I am agreeing with you here, in the grand scheme of the overall "title case vs. stylization" issue: "if the sources make an explicit fuss about the casing of the title anything then we should discuss it but, "discuss" doesn't ever mean "emulate" i.e. just because a word is notably cased unusually, doesn't mean we should adjust our write up beyond providing a clear example."

To show widespread use of the "correct" title in prestigious publications: the good kid, m.A.A.d city rendering is good enough for Rolling Stone (kind of a "big deal" publication for popular music), The New York Times (known as America's "paper of record"), and The Lancet ("among the world's oldest, most prestigious, and best known general medical journals"), to pull a handful. There are countless other examples; it's roughly fifty-fifty between publications that use title case and ones that use the "correct" title. For instance, The New Yorker uses title case, but they're also known to spell "preëminent" and "coöperation" a bit differently than most publications, too—which is just to say that different manuals of style have different priorities. —BLZ · talk 01:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

in principle, a uniquely capitalized title (i.e., not just a stylistic all-caps or all-lowercase) can carry subtle shades of meaning that may otherwise be lost – and if ever that's the case, as presented by reliable sources, the respective articles should mention it; I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. We can and perhaps should state where an artist has reportedly stated the correct title of their works, as it is likely in that case, that the title has been incorrectly (as far as the artist is concerned) reported previously for the subject to even come up but, that doesn't mean we need to emulate it. Our responsibility to report that the artist is fussy about the title of their work ends at us doing so. We can go a step further, in particularly (as established by a disproportionately (due weight) high rate of reports in reliable sources) unusual cases, by ensuring the article title and the first emboldened mention matches the casing but, the rest of the prose about the work needn't emulate the casing; it is perfectly reasonable for us to refer to a work as "it" or "the <work>"; there is no need for prose to repeat unusual casing – even if the artist is extremely outspoken about it, the media goes nuts about it, and the casing is verified as extraordinarily symbolic.

there can be meanings and resonances beyond the ones that are obvious or already-on-the-record, which is precisely why we should present unique title renderings such as this one at least once in their article – this is where we could wander into the realm of original research; is it our place to suppose that there may be off-the-record meanings and, by emphasis, imply that readers take note of them? There's a very good reason why we are guided to indicate even subtle changes, like emphasis via italics or emboldening, to quoted text; if we emphasise anything, we are making a statement about it. Without explicitly stating what that statement is, we are implying something, but lose control of what; the implication is established by the reader. This creates original research by synthesis of the reader's perception (which we have no control over) and the implication of specialness by emphasis. If we assume a meaning beyond the ones that are obvious or already-on-the-record and report it to the reader via any kind of unexplained or unsupported emphasis, we our guilty of original research. Plainly i.e. commonly cased prose offers no emphasis beyond what we can reasonably expected to be understood by readers, and we don't subtly dip our toes into the hot water of OR.

TL;DR – Common casing will be commonly understood. Uncommon casing should be reserved for uncommon cases. Synthesis can exist by accident and we need to be careful to avoid it. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols has one of the most iconic of all album covers with a title that caused measurable fuss in the media and even law, and yet the article's title and prose are pleasantly devoid of nonsense about the extremely unusual casing. How would that article be improved by referencing the album title everywhere as NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS, HERE'S THE SeX PisTOLs, and is there in fact any definitive answer to the question of which letters are what case? Popcornduff hits the nail on the head just above; we're dealing with cover art here, not quoting text. As I said before; unless sources make a fuss about the case, there seems no reason that we should. Something I was thinking about earlier is the fact that title case exists as the case it is normal to use when writing titles; why do we feel the need to make up special rules about how titles should be cased, when something so universally acceptable already serves the world so well? My !vote is for the widest possible use of plain English with common casing, and notes about unusual casing/presentation only when sources make a fuss about it. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Fred Gandt, Here's bracing for edit wars with "THE FIRST 'S' IN 'SEX PISTOLS' IS ACTUALLY LOWER CASE IF YOU LOOK AT THE FONT AND THE LAST 'S' IS SMALL CAPS, NOT LOWER CASE!" ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the belly laugh Koavf :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Music external link templates

Hello. I've found a few links in Category:Music_external_link_templates that according to the wikiproject are unreliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#General_2. Specifically, Discogs, Metal Archives and MetroLyrics. Also, Discogs is also used at Wikidata, so if it's removed here, then maybe there as well. Should these templates be cleaned out and deleted? Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Metal Archives is always an unreliable source. Delete wherever you find them.

Discogs.com can be used to verify the existence of something—a song exists on an album, or if liner notes are supplied, any content in them—but nothing else.

MetroLyrics are tricky. They officially license the lyrics of a song. There are three types of lyrics listed there: locked, confirmed and changes are accepted but it's unclear how those are addressed, and uneditable. The former and the second are valid sources of a specific lyric or to be used in ELs, the third type should not be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: In the category, there's three versions of metroltrics and 4 for discogs. So would these two be permitting even though it's not 100% reliable? as for Metal Archives, there's only a handful of them linked with this template I could clean out. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

At WP:RSN the question is frequently not a binary "reliable" or "unreliable". Items can be reliable for some things and not reliable for others. Metal Archives is never reliable. The other two are generally unreliable, but they can be used in certain circumstances. AllMusic falls into this category as well: the genre cloud and other content generated by an algorithm, and user reviews are not reliable. Reviews with a byline, ratings, credits are reliable. Some of the release date information—particularly for older releases that have experienced reissues—are not always reliable. If you know how to use a source, it's always useful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether MetroLyrics links should be included at all has been raised several times. With its changing methodologies, known reliability problems, and heavy advertising, its appropriateness is increasing doubtful. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: @Walter Görlitz: Of the three I mentioned, I knew Metal Archives was not reliable, and always thought discogs was not reliable. MetroLyrics I've only seen in the above categoey recently and just thought it'd be unreliable as well. Would Discogs and MetroLyrics need an update saying which parts of the website are usable at the unreliable source section at WikiProject Albums? As for Metal Archives, would it be useful to depreceate this template and delete? There are currently 1000+ useages of this website without the template and around 30 for the template one. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

AllMusic should only be considered reliable for its professional reviews and Discogs for its images. Any guidance for MetroLyrics would be temporary, since it frequently changes its methodologies. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Future-Class articles

I don't see a lot of value in Category:Future-Class Album articles. It seems like it's just introduced overhead to add the "future" class until the day it's released and then add "whatever" for how good the article is on the day it's dropped. Since we already have Category:Upcoming albums as an effective method of policing content that may violate WP:CRYSTAL and adding/removing categories is easier than editing talk page tags, I propose that we remove this functionality from {{album}}. What do others think? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Billboard paywall?

Checking to see if I’m the only one experiencing this - has Billboard put a bunch of their charts behind a paywall all of a sudden? The all-format major ones like the Billboard 200 or Hot 100 ones are viewable, but more specialized ones, like Mainstream Rock or Pop Songs are limited to the top 1 to 3 entries. You can still look up things individually - for example, you can look up Tool to see that Fear Inoculum is up to #7 this week, but if that’s the only way to find out, it seems like this will make it far more difficult/tedious/likely to find chart positions. (Not to mention editors like myself used the chart as an indicator of important song/album articles to be created or focused on.)

Please tell me I’m missing something? Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not just you @Sergecross73: Both are locked under Billboard Pro. Also, the chart search too is now locked as well :( --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You can still search individual artist charts without a paywall.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but then you'd have to guess which artists would appear on a specific chart you're looking for, instead of viewing the specific chart for a specific date. If you're searching by artist, this won't be a barrier, but searching by specific dates/charts will. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s what I was trying to say in my first comment. You can still look up individual items, but you can’t see the chart on a whole anymore. I always assumed the people who do mass charting updates did it by looking at the charts themselves. I could be wrong though. Ss112 how do you usually do it? Does this affect your method? Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Even before Billboard introduced the paywall, I would already stop the page from fully loading in my browser—one can still see all the chart positions, but I didn't want the annoying ads/video content in the sidebar to load. That appears to still work, so I'll keep doing that until/unless Billboard truncates the chart to the first three to four places from the time the page begins loading, which was the way charts were configured on billboard.com/biz (and they might just end up doing that eventually). After that, there are still several music forums out there that reprint the charts in full, so I would use those. Ss112 05:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Doom Metal

Once again, a user is attempting to add Doom Metal as a genre to this article without discussion. This user has already told me to "Fuck Off" [28]] and demonstrated a very clear lack of civility or willingness to work collaboratively with these edit summaries: [29] [30]. At any rate, this very topic has already been discussed on the article's talk page and it's been determined in the past that, while it influenced Doom Metal, that particular sub-genre came into being many years later. Do we need to discuss this yet again? SolarFlash (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the editor was in the wrong to add an unsourced genre and act uncivilly...but your reaction seems a bit extreme as well, for such a mundane, routine sort of mistake... Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you disapprove but discussion is always a better option. Are you advocating edit warring instead? Discussion is how we do things. SolarFlash (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Is that your take away from what I said? Let me elaborate. He is in the wrong, but you are being too aggressive about this as well. And at no point did I advocate against discussion. Discussion should definitely happen. Though you could probably benefit from taking a moment to cool down before you continue on. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that was my take away. I always follow the guidelines, which is all I've done here. I find it odd that an administrator would rather discuss me than the edits in question. Do you have anything to add to the discussion itself? SolarFlash (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

How can you say that? Twice now I’ve said the other editor was in the wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If I may: I believe the admin was saying you should have given time for your discussion on the article talkpage to germinate before beginning another discussion here, which is considered a higher level of appeal. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I respect your opinions. Hopefully someone will want to discuss the actual issue. Remember guys, discuss the edits and not the editor. SolarFlash (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You came here requesting input on a content dispute. It’s perfectly acceptable to note that neither editor was conducting them in optimal ways for settling a dispute. Anyways, in regards to the dispute, just go hash it out with him on the talk page. If sources support it, add it. If no sources support it, leave it out. It’s as simple as that. You’re both long-term editors, so I don’t see what the hang up is. Nor do I plan on sticking around to find out - you’re both being too combative about all this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sergecross, you have to be the most combative admin I've ever encountered here. You contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion and actually escalated the entire situation. Do something useful and just delete the entire discussion. SolarFlash (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Carnegie Hall Christmas Concert

I would appreciate comments at this discussion, whatever your opinion may be.4meter4 (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this an accepted method of organizing info?

During a discussion with another editor unrelated to this Wikiproject, this individual brought up The Eraser as an example to support adding subjective commentary on sections outside of Reception sections. In The Eraser, there is a Music and lyrics section that has a lot of commentary and some composition notes from other sources. A lot of the composition notes are minimal and used in between the commentary. Is this an accepted process?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I wrote The Eraser. That section, "Music and lyrics", is supposed to describe the style and content of, well, the music and lyrics. I therefore used quotes from reliable sources (including reviews) to describe these things. I believe this is uncontroversial. Popcornduff (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Style is very subjective. But I also think its undue weight. These commentators are being used as if they were the ones who composed the album. It might be the different circumstance if multiple reliable sources used similar descriptions, but this is just a listing of different reliable sources and how they interpret the style, but that's not the same thing as describing what it actually is or supposed to be. It doesn't make sense that there are composition and commentary in the same section.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes and no – it seems to me it's rather lazily done in that section. There's description from music critics that could partly be paraphrased, which would introduce a more encyclopaedic tone. What's really noticeable, imo, is how a reviewer's favourable or unfavourable opinion often carries across ("insidious", "evocative"), and it's no surprise, after reading a Pitchfork writer saying the album is "glitchy, sour, feminine, brooding" to then learn that the same source gives it a pretty average rating under Reception.

In a section describing an album or song's style or giving commentary or interpretation of the content, we shouldn't be reading or ideally even detecting any writer's personal opinion as to whether they like or dislike the work (my point about the Pitchfork comments). So, yes, it's okay to use professional reviews to help describe an album's music and lyrics; but the comments should be fine-tuned/paraphrased to address the subject in a less PoV context. It should be informative, in other words. Whether the album is successful in delivering on its inspiration, aim, concept, etc, is not even relevant until the section discussing its critical reception. JG66 (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Lazy - ouch. I spend hours on these articles.

Paraphrasing is better for these sections (not least for WP:QUOTEFARM reasons), and I might revisit this to see if there's more opportunity for that. However, I don't see the POV problem in getting a fuzzy sense of whether the quoted critic liked the piece, as long as it doesn't become the focus of the section or quote. They are quotes, after all, and not presented in Wikipedia's voice.

Thought experiment: imagine you're reading those quotes in the Reception section. They suddenly are far less useful, as they cover the critics' description of the music while making no clear statements of its quality. When I write music articles, I'm careful to separate description and critique in this way, and place them in the appropriate section.

I'm surprised, incidentally, that you connect the description "glitchy, sour, feminine, brooding" to a negative review. That's Yorke's modus operandi, and he's one of the most acclaimed artists of his generation, not least by Pitchfork. Popcornduff (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I revisited this and I agree that some of the more loaded subjective assessment could have been left out (I wrote it years ago). But I think the rest is defensible. Including "feminine" and "brooding", which don't, to me, carry obvious positive or negative connotation. Popcornduff (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I read Blue Pumpkin Pie's initial question and went straight to the article, without reading your or anyone else's replies in between. The section did read rather too much like critical reception, I have to say. Further to BPP's second post here, it might be an idea to present Yorke's comments first, or at least try to ensure that reviewers don't swamp the section. Just an idea. JG66 (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it’s perfectly fine. It’s just an alternate wording to the also-common “Composition and themes” type section. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Although I do agree the naming of the header is left a little too broad to the point of being unclear, my concern is how much weight we give the commentary on the reliable sources.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Well feel free to discuss specifics with him on the talk page, but in a general sense, both first and third party accounts are appropriate in writing about the composition of a body of music. I have no stance on the article itself, though I am concerned by how many areas you and Popcornduff are engaged in disputes currently though, and doubly so because I haven’t witnessed you writing in the music or Radiohead areas in the past. I hope you are not following him around and picking fights...? Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I gave The Eraser as an example of how I'd quoted reviews in non-reception sections as part of a different dispute. That's how Blue Pumpkin has got onto it. Popcornduff (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense, and is fine, then. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, not a case of Follow Me Around. Popcornduff (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: This was brought up because of an in talk:Jet Set Radio regarding the soundtrack and placement of a comment. If you want more context about the situation, then you can see how I arrived here.

Hypothetically if The Times said, "The Arctic Monkeys is a polyphony of raw, breathy, classical rock and rebellious revolution", Would this be an appropriate place to be used in the composition section of one of their albums? And even if it is, should we put emphasis on who said it and quote them completely rather than just taking keywords? Even JG66 thought it resembled to closely to a Reception section than a Composition section.

For example, The Eraser current revision has: The Eraser features "skittery beats and pattery rhythms" and "minimal post-rockisms". I'm aware that the author of the album, Thom Yorke, described it like that but, should we accept it as a universal fact? Or is that the best nuetral way of describing it?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fall into the Open

The article Fall into the Open has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication that this album meet WP:NALBUM. The sources cited show it exists, but that's about it and they don't show how the album is notable enough for an article to be written about it. Most of the article content is nothing but WP:Namechecking or various other artists or people associated with the production, etc., but none it is supported by any citation to reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please leave the discussion notifications for the correct place: this is not it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I only added the notification here because it was suggested to do so on the Prod template with "Please consider notifying the author/project". I only did so as a courtesy, but if it's not necessary then feel free to remove. The uploader has been notified of the Prod. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians is for. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I added a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians#Proposed deletions. If something more is needed, then let me know. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Spotify Singles

Should Spotify Singles EPs be included in the albums chronology in infoboxes? None of them have articles and none of them are traditional releases. Saw this being done on a Charlie Puth article and imo it is quite pointless.--NØ 14:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don’t usually link to song/albums that don’t have an article, in line with WP:NAV and WP:WTAF. But I’m not sure if that’s the typical practice or not. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This recently came up at Template talk:Infobox album#Please change the guideline for chronology to exclude releases without articles in favor of release with articles. Template:Infobox album#Chronology includes "In general, all albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain in order of release date ... If the previous or next release has a Wikipedia article, link the title to the corresponding article." If an infobox chrono excludes certain releases so it does not reflect actual release dates, then it is not a chronology in a technical sense. However, if the release is some kind of specialty or limited release which doesn't reflect the artist's normal body of work, it should be able to be excluded by consensus. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that these should be included in chronologies or discographies. For one thing, it's not an album – it's just two tracks recorded live in Spotify's own studios, one being his then-current single, and the other a cover version. For me this is the modern-day equivalent to a radio session, or perhaps a flexidisc mounted on a magazine cover, neither of which would be considered official releases for inclusion in a discography. Also, I know WP:SINGLEVENDOR currently only applies to charts, but as these recordings are only available on Spotify, I think the same criteria should apply here, as they are not available through other outlets. Richard3120 (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Feature listings in albums (Bleed American)

Koavf and I are more than in disagreement about the noting of Davey von Bohlen featuring in "A Praise Chorus", a song by Jimmy Eat World on their album Bleed American (the disputed page in question). I believe it should be listed, he does not; with his rationale claiming it to be "redundant to the personnel section". I think that's absurd, this is common practice on album articles and he does not appear to believe me. In addition, every online outlet listing for Bleed American mentions him by name in the tracklist lists him as a feature.[31][32][33][34] His response was: "I think that retroactively changing a track listing (which is supposed to list the tracks) because a store that didn't even exist when the album was released decided at some point to add one individual's name to one track is ridiculous," just to stick with how the article has been (I believe it shouldn't have been this way). I may be assuming things here, but what "(which is supposed to list the tracks)" appears to tell me is that they believe features shouldn't even be listed at all and everything should just be in personnel. I am so certain that a listing inside the tracklist is necessary that I'm willing to come here for it.

I would like to see if I can gain consensus by giving this a larger audience. For the original discussion, see here.

Sorry in advance, Justin, I don't mean to attack you, I just want to give as honest an interpretation as I can of what appears to be the issue. dannymusiceditor ^oops 18:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, Not an attack, Danny--you bring up valid points. We can disagree respectfully and I am thankful for your work here. Interested to see what others say. One thing I will point out here is that the "featuring [x]" designation was only added after the fact by stores that didn't even exist when this album was released. Are we going to change track listings (which are static information) based on whatever apps come along in subsequent decades and start including extraneous information? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I respect both of you as well, and I can see both sides. I’m leaning in favor of Koavf on this one though. It’s hasn’t historically been represented as a collaboration, and honestly...it’s not much of one. This person didn’t have his own verse or come in to bust out his own guitar solo or something. He has no real discernible part. “Features” are usually given to roles like that. (I know it’s anecdotal but...this is probably my favorite Jimmy Eat World song...and I didn’t even know anyone else played on the song until now.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This is something I've been hoping to see someone bring up for a long, long time. I like this particular example because Bleed American also has four additional guest musicians that don't appear to have been brought up in the discussion. Should we be listing all of them in the track listing? None of them? Just the famous ones? I've seen edits following each one of those directions over the years. The way I've edited most pages in the interest of finding a neutral way to go about it has been to list all guest musicians in the "Personnel" section, and then in the "Track listing" section I try to match what the physical album and liner notes say. So in this case, I would have to agree with Danny's edits to the page that add Davey von Bohlen to the track listing (assuming those digital retailers match how the song title is listed on the physical copy). Fezmar9 (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Fezmar9, It seems like you've misunderstood my comment above that these digital listings do not match the liner notes. I tried to make that clear but evidently it wasn't: https://www.discogs.com/Jimmy-Eat-World-Bleed-American/master/89141 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh that's really bizarre. I don't think I've seen a disconnect like that before. If there was a rule written on this, I might be inclined to say this would be an exception to it. Presumably it was DreamWorks Records who uploaded the file to these streaming sites, and presumably it would have been on DreamWorks to decide to include or not include Davey von Bohlen in the liner notes 18 years ago. It seems the label has changed their minds, so maybe we should too? I'm not sure, this situation is a lot more complicated now that I have a better understanding of it haha. Seemed so black and white to me a half hour ago. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

How do reliable sources make reference to the song? Is it always "'A Praise Chorus' featuring Davey von Bohlen" or do they simply list it as "'A Praise Chorus'" and the "featured" artist listing is limited to the liner notes? If the song does not list the performer, we shouldn't include it in the track listing.

This came up on Testify (P.O.D. album). The first single "Goodbye for Now" had a guest vocal from Katy Hudson, before the name change (to Katy Perry) and her career took off. A number of editors tried to "pump" the song by indicating that it was featuring Katy Perry. The song did not list it that way. No contemporary sources stated that it featured the singer. Eventually, it was removed. Is that applicable here? Is it even germane to the conversation? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s a very similar situation. With both of these songs, the artist is credited as being on the track, but isn’t generally listed as “featured” in the track listing, or when they were played on MTV, radio stations, digital music stations, etc, at least as far as I had ever seen. Sergecross73 msg me 02:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Fezmar9, The fact that this can happen and then cause this confusion is exactly why a track listing should be "# [Artist, if a compilation] "Song" (Writer) [Time]" Adding in all manner of extraneous information just makes things confusing and needlessly complicated otherwise. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree as I do not find "featuring John Doe" to be extraneous, confusing nor needlessly complicated, and I recognize that it's an important part of a track listing outside of Wikipedia. I think it might be best to chop this discussion in half and discuss "featuring" mentions more broadly and generally, and then how the more complicated Bleed American example fits into that broader discussion. I primarily edit punk/metal articles where guest appearances are less common and less frequently publicized, but I do recognize that pop and hip hop music very frequently feature prominent guests where those guests are essentially listed in track titles. We even have a section talking about it at Guest appearance#Contemporary music, so it seems weird for Wikipedia to acknowledge this culturally but not technically in our own track listings. Fezmar9 (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fezmar9: Feel free to disagree, but do it with reliable sources that state what you want to support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

What? Reliable sources are for supporting facts in articles, not opinions in talk page discussions. There are no published sources that support the opinion that Wikipedia should publish "featuring" mentions in track listings, nor the opinion that including such information is confusing or complicated, nor the opinion that Bleed American is a complicated example, nor the opinion that we don't even have a general guideline for what to do with "featured" mentions broadly and should probably start one before going into this specific example, nor are there any sources that support the opinions to the contrary. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. If reliable source state that someone is a featured artist, then we should list it. If they don't, then we should not. Edit warring is not about opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It really should be that simple. Go look at the track listing in the album jacket. Mirror the Wikipedia track list to whatever you see there. Mention it in the credits either way. (Unless it’s uncredited and unsourceable) The end. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

So, regardless of what the digital retailers say (I'm inclined to believe the band had some say in how it was displayed since it's up to them whether or not their records are available on any given platform), we should only believe album jackets?

I disagree, but I guess consensus is consensus...I'm willing to accept the change they've made into the official tracklist and can accept that such listing may change, and we could change it to match accordingly. I suppose we could do something different to mention this one, but let's solve one thing at a time. dannymusiceditor ^oops 22:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Side note to Fezmar9: In regards to DreamWorks being the ones who uploaded these files to streaming sites, that is almost certainly false. I had forgotten that DreamWorks Records, despite releasing this iconic emo record, had a short life and has been defunct for over a decade. I think someone else made this decision. dannymusiceditor ^oops 22:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The goal of the article is not to just reproduce what the album's liner notes say. This is thoroughly discussed in the album style guide. There is a weird misconception that we are somehow beholden to what is printed in liner notes which is not at all true and not at all helpful for readers. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Liner notes are not the only reliable sources that discuss a work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, And many are unreliable, as point out in the style guide (which would encourage everyone to read). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Koavf, what do you mean by it being "not at all helpful to readers"? Please elaborate, as I'm inclined to disagree heavily with that for the same reasons as already given. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, Reproducing all of the inside jokes and thank yous to irrelevant persons and not including accurate information that is also not included in liner notes is not helpful. We aren't a liner notes reproduction service: our goal is to write factual information. Sometimes, that is what is in the liner notes and sometimes it is not. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Where did I ever imply those were of value? I guess what you meant by reproducing the album's liner notes was in the literal sense there. I didn't think you meant that, of course we don't have to do all those silly things, but liners are useful for some things, as you say. I didn't ever think of those things you listed as useful, I promise. Sorry. dannymusiceditor ^oops 05:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, You didn't and I didn't write that you did. What I wrote was that Wikipedia reproducing liner notes is not helpful: we would be helpful is writing what is true. Sometimes, liner notes are helpful in that regard and sometimes not. Liner notes are not some veto on what we should do here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Not mentioning death

This is really more of a band/musician question, but I figured I would ask here since it’s the most active music WikiProject.

Somewhere, there’s a guideline/MOS entry that says to not mention that someone died in the ”band members” section of bands. So, for example, this would be wrong. Someone has asked me to cite what I’m talking about...and honestly, it’s one of those things I’ve been enforcing so long I dont recall where idea came from. Can anyone link me to the section or Wiki-alphabet-soup shortcut to this? Sergecross73 msg me 00:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a first I've heard about, but if that's the case then Linkin Park and Soundgarden would need updating for example. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s part of the problem, it’s not widely enforced. The other editor had seen it so much he thought mentioning it was the preferred way. But I’m fairly certain it’s not supposed to be mentioned, unless that guideline was changed somewhere along the line or something. Sergecross73 msg me 01:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Can't help, but this seems to be related to the issue of mentioning deaths in the infobox field for band members, as in the disagreement here. To me, it's sensible to omit it - this field and the timeline Serge describes answer the question "who was in this band and when?", so other kinds of information (such as death dates) are not relevant or appropriate. Popcornduff (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this was always my understanding of it - the section is meant to outline band roles and timeframes. Dying is neither a role nor a timeframe...(And wow, yeah, it looks like we were having the same conceptual dispute concurrently on separate articles, though, to give him credit, the person in my situation stopped and asked for clarification on the rule instead of edit warring.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Spooky. 'This the season. Popcornduff (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought this stipulation was for the infobox. dannymusiceditor ^oops 18:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I can’t confirm or deny that, with not being able to find this at all, but I always thought it was for band members sections. I’ve been doing it for years and no one has corrected me on it at least. Not that I’m all that serious about enforcing it, or there wouldn’t be so many instances of it being found... Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Alright, let’s try a different approach. Can anyone link me to any music related MOS pages? I don’t mind searching myself, I just don’t even know where they are. I mostly just write/create articles to GA/FAs or discussions I’ve had than the MOS itself. Sergecross73 msg me 21:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music#Guidelines lists a few, plus there's also WP:NCMUSIC, MOS:TUNINGS, and probably more. Maybe a master list including the abbreviated shortcuts could be created and added to the appropriate music-related project/style pages. It may be helpful in preparing FAs, since following the style guidelines is criterion #2. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Bonus tracks and Total length

When listing Limited edition bonus tracks underneath the official track listing, should the total length include the non-bonus tracks or just the total length of the bonus tracks? Cognissonance (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Cognissonance, Where? Are you talking about in the infobox? If so, I would recommend looking at the documentation at {{infobox album}}. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I'll just follow a featured article's way of doing it. Cognissonance (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source?

A user is trying to use nolanstolz.com as a source in a Black Sabbath article. Does the source pass WP:Reliability? I just don't see any indication of editorial oversight or reputation for accuracy. SolarFlash (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@SolarFlash: I think the source would be valid if it was a published academic paper... however, it's not really clear whether this "Home of Metal Symposium" qualifies as a genuine academic conference and the paper will be publicly available. The best solution would be to find out where the original 1971 quote comes from – presumably an interview in a UK or US music magazine; if that was stated then at least it would be possible to look for the original quotation and cite that instead, which would solve this issue. Richard3120 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree. He's a professor, but source links to lectures, not a peer-reviewed journal or academic conference presentation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree as well. Sergecross73 msg me 22:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wall of Sound

I am trying to use this to cite something on August Burns Red, but I'm not 100% sure if it's reliable or not. What do you guys think? I looked through the archives, found a passing mention of in from 2013, but no real discussion of it or listing at WP:A/S. Note: this is not the same as Wall of Sound (website). dannymusiceditor ^oops 16:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Are the two unrelated? Edit: I was about to say that we recently discussed this, but I was confusing Wall of Sound AU with AU Review. Sergecross73 msg me 16:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Formats/media

Hi, Sorry if this has been asked before, but I often want to know what media formats an album is published in, including reel-to-reel (yes I once owned some), cassette, vinyl, CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, download. Is there a reason this information seldom seems to appear in articles? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess the simple answer is that the template for the album infobox doesn't include a parameter for the release formats, so it's not currently possible to add this information for albums. I imagine that many people would say "just look at the release year and work it out", so an album released in 1972 was probably released on vinyl LP and 8-track cartridge, and an album from 1992 was probably released on CD and cassette. But I understand that you want to know all the formats, and there are still albums released today on vinyl, mostly in the alternative/punk sector. We'd have to get a consensus as to whether this parameter should be added to the infobox, but I'd note it would need every current album article to be checked and amended manually to add the information. Richard3120 (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The formats have traditionally been vinyl recordings, then compact discs and more recently digital release order. The former can be distinguished from the others by the addition of side one, side two' pseudoheadings. I have seen DVD and other media information conveyed in the heading parameter, but I'm not sure it's really been information that needs to be conveyed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both for your answers. One question they raise for me is whether unusual releases, such as say the Best of the Beach Boys on reel-to-reel tape in the UK, are of sufficient encyclopedic value to include, or should we just stick to primary release media? Another question would be whether such information should be in the infobox or the body of the article. In reply to some other points: as a member of the vastly sprawling Aviation WikiProject having to update many thousands of articles is no novelty to me - if it benefits the readers then it should happen, in the seventies almost all rock and pop vinyl was simultaneously released on cassette while 8-track cartridge was at beast a minor diversion, while around the millennium a reader really would not know whether an album was primarily released on vinyl or CD or both unless they were told (and how do we draw the line over "side No.s" if both media had the same primacy and content?). I well understand that Wikipedia is not a catalogue, but are we really going far enough in meeting our readers' expectations? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I can see you're a Brit like me, and the answer is that in 2000 in the UK CDs were the biggest-selling format by a huge amount... cassettes were also still far more popular than LPs at this point, having overtaken vinyl sales as far back as 1985. But trying to decide the "primary" format is going to be an impossible task in many cases. For one thing, musical genre is going to be a big factor: cassettes were the biggest-selling format in the UK between 1985 and 1991, but I doubt they were ever the primary format for classical and opera recordings, for example. Another issue is going to be the effect of the region: for example, the CD (both albums and singles) caught on much more quickly in Japan, and because they were cheaper and more portable, cassettes retained their popularity in developing countries for a while after the CD had overtaken them in Europe and North America. So the primary format in one region or country may not be the same as in another region. Richard3120 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

"trying to decide the 'primary' format is going to be an impossible task in many case" - except that is effectively what we already do. We don't call vinyl and CD primary but that is how we treat them. The question must be, can we do better than this? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Dispute at The Later Years 1987–2019

There's a dispute on whether to include a section with no citations at The Later Years 1987–2019. Other input appreciated. Popcornduff (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Copying an "updated description" and ADM?

Hi. It seems like someone added "which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream publications" to a Metacritic reception sentence, and now some people defend that it should be shown exactly in every music article and is a vital part of the reception section. I think it is totally redundant and deficient in describing it. I also think that it seems to be a matter of personal preference. However, Metacritic doesn't only collect from the mainstream publications, see here: [35]. I wonder how much "normalized rating" is necessary when the Metascore is already shown between 0-100 and there is no aggregator other than Metaritic. ADM? is dubious when it comes to notability, and uses most of the same critics Metacritic has (even fewer publications than MC), yet the same people who insist on using the normalized rating description above also use it. Sebastian James what's the T? 16:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: Look at this discussion, mostly anybody agreed that ADM is an reliable source. You are a few years late on that one. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

And another thing, people added "which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream publications" because of this, people added that sentence because they were following the guidelines. You can't just go around removing that without having a consensus first. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

After thinking about it, you have a point. I have remove the sentence off of WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, since Metacritic doesn't only collect reviews from "mainstream" publications. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The Metascore is shown as being out of 100 only in the ratings template, which is meant to supplement the text, not supplant it (MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings templates). And we really shouldn't assume the average person will know what Metacritic or an aggregate score are (AUDIENCE). If "mainstream" is inaccurate, change it to "professional", which would lend the statement more credibility to readers. Dan56 (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Not much difference between "mainstream" and "professional". Does Wikipedia ever include "unprofessional" critic reviews? No. We can describe Metacritic such as "At the review aggregator Metacritic, ...", and also add "... out of 100" or ".../100". The metascores speak for themselves, no one wonders if 90 out of 100 means a "normalized" rating, we should explain/describe what the reception scores mean, not "the numbers". Sebastian James what's the T? 17:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

"Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully." (WP:AUDIENCE) Dan56 (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The sentence is based on what Metacritic also felt needed to be explained to its readership ("How We Create the Metascore Magic") Dan56 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: I'm starting to agree with you about the sentence should be removed. I barely see video game and film articles have that sentence, so why should we keep it only on music articles? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Father of the Bride (album)/GA1

I am very close to passing this article's GA nomination, but I have encountered a unique case that I had not discovered on Wikipedia until today. In the Songs section of Vampire Weekend's latest album, Father of the Bride, we are talking about the origin of the fifteenth track "We Belong Together", but one of the references used to support the sentences' claims was an Instagram Stories post by the band's now-producer dated the day after the album's release. I don't have a problem with this information coming from a primary source given it is about his own work. The problem I have with this is that IG stories are disappearing posts a la Snapchat after 24 hours, and unless they save it in an archive, this creates problems with verifiability. The nominator was able to find me this screenshot from the day it was posted, but given it's on Reddit, while it flies with me I don't know if it would with others or with policy. I'm not doubting Rostam Batmanglij's authenticity here, but what do you think? Is this acceptable referencing, especially for a good article? If not, what do you suggest is the appropriate course of action? dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Great question—imo, that's a fairly challenging problem without a simple answer. Luckily, for now, we don't have to answer it. A recent Vanity Fair article, "Meet Rostam Batmanglij, Super-Producer", just published on October 30, 2019, provides the same information (and in greater detail):

"So that idea was one of, like, four ideas that Ezra [Koenig] and I started in Martha's Vineyard in, I think, April 2012. ... So we spent about two days just trying to make songs as quickly as possible. And one of those songs started in the form of an acoustic guitar riff that I played on a 12-string acoustic guitar, and a drumbeat. And that’s still in 'We Belong Together.' In fact, that guitar was recorded in Martha's Vineyard. It never changed."

So in this case, we have a better source and don't have to worry about whether it's necessary to use the Instagram story. It's a close call, otherwise. Not all Instagram stories are disappearing, as you can choose to archive them, but in either case they seem tough to cite. I can't find specific guidance for citing Instagram stories online—regular photos and videos, sure, but not stories. I think in general I'd want to err on the side of not using them. I consider myself fairly open to citing social media when it's appropriate, but this does seem to cross a verifiability line. Not sure if I'd want to categorically rule it out in every case, but there would have to be a pretty compelling reason. —BLZ · talk 21:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The Sacrament of Sin

Could someone rate the article The Sacrament of Sin? It was first rated as a stub and I added a lot of things to it, so it would be nice if someone could update the rating.--Szegewar (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

To source or not to source

This may or may not be the right talk page for this exact question but as most of the relevant editors seem to already be here...I was approached here by ImprovedWikiImprovment regarding my reverting them for adding unsourced genres to live Nirvana albums here, here & here as a few examples. Their argument on my talk page being that the artist is performing their song as it was performed on the studio album, mine was that live performences sometime variate and sourcing is required. What are other editors thoughts regarding genre sourcing for live albums? Robvanvee 14:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes essentially I am saying that WP:V can be ignored due to the exceptional circumstance of a live album. IWI (chat) 14:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

And the question relates only if no source is actually available, which as far as I can find is true here. IWI (chat) 14:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

In general, I usually go with “when in doubt, source it”, but that said, I think there should be reason for doubt too. I mean, we’re talking about live/acoustic Nirvana songs. These werent jazz reworking or hip hip remixes. I don’t see a good-faith to doubt it being something like alternative rock. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Other than MTV Unplugged in New York, we’re talking about live versions in nearly the exact same style as the album (of course this statement is original research but it is true). IWI (chat) 14:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

My concern is that an album may have been reliably cited as Alt rock. That album has a certain number of songs on. Another studio album is reliably cited as Electro pop and has a certain number of songs on. A live album contains a mix of songs from the 2 albums perhaps with a few numbers played in a variation of the usual styles. Things are often not as simple as WP:IAR. Take Radiohead and their genre spanning career for example. One could not simply describe a live show of theirs as Alt rock. I guess it could be argued that obviously Nirvana played the songs in an Alt rock manner but where do we draw the line in such a vague area and who do we trust to gauge whether a live album/track was performed in a certain style/genre? BTW, I have no doubt that ImprovedWikiImprovment was editing in good faith. Robvanvee 14:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you more or less answered your question. If you have a good reason to doubt it, (Radiohead), then challenge it and require a source. If you don’t have a good reason to doubt it (Nirvana), then don’t challenge it and let it stay. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes agreed. In this specific instance, there is no doubt, although this isn’t an idea that could be carbon copied to every live album by all bands. IWI (chat) 16:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd have appreciated more participation in this discussion but fair enough, I accept the reasoning the 2 of you present in this regard. Robvanvee 04:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)