Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 69

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

→

Archive 75

RfC: album chronology in infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was to keep the Chronology section as is. Popcornfud (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

---

In album infoboxes, should the "Chronology" section only contain releases for which Wikipedia has articles, similar to the WP:EXISTING guidance for nav boxes? (See discussion above.) Popcornfud (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No, per already established guidance from Template:Infobox album#Chronology. I consider this to be an established precedent, and the above discussion seemed to show no overwhelming consensus. An infobox is not a nav box, no need to use similar guidance. Keep the literal interpretation as the most obvious solution. Mburrell (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I somehow missed your link to the Chronology section in the previous discussion, and it so seems that there may be more of an established guideline for this than I realized! This RfC may prove redundant but I'll leave it a little while just in case anyone has anything interesting to say. Popcornfud (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No. I can't wrap my head around this one. It would make things more confusing and would add a ton of useless work for editors across the various music projects. Tkbrett (✉) 00:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No. The goal of the chronology section should be to display releases in chronological order. Plenty other navigation options exist in any given article, and other infobox information wouldn't be excluded for not being linkable. QuietHere (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes per the same reasoning as WP:NAV templates. The purpose is to lead readers to the next relevant article to read. An unlinked entry breaks the chain and isn't helpful in that respect. I don't see the point in linking to an unlinked, unexplained, contextless album/song name. Sergecross73 msg me 02:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No. A chronology should follow the actual chronological order of releases. If it skips over releases, it isn't a chronology by the normal definition of the word. Infobox parameters should use terminology in the way that the average reader understands and not a special interpretation by some WP editors. Also, an infobox, by definition, is not strictly for navigation. Other parameters, such as studios and producers, may not link to existing articles, but are routinely included in infoboxes. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment. The problem of not being able to continue through a discography when there's no article for the next in the list could be reduced by changing the infobox heading from '[artist] chronology', linking to the biography of [artist], to something like '[artist] discography', linking to the discography of [artist] (either its own article or part of the biography). EddieHugh (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Artist navboxes at the bottom of the page usually include a link to a discography and a chronological listings of linked albums. There is no apparent advantage in repeating these links in infoboxes. Also, see Lil-unique's comments. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Alternative, why not remove the chronology all together and just link to the discography? There's stills some unsavoury practice of multiple chronologies etc. Other than navigation, I don't think its significant information and is already contained in the artist template at the bottom of the page. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  The multiple chronology bit was discussed in a 2020 RfC, which resolved that only a single chronology ought to be used. It still left the door open for multiple chronologies, back when releases were different across major markets (for example, see Sgt. Pepper and Aftermath). I know you were part of that RfC, but I'm just posting this here because I have found a lot of editors are unaware of that 2020 discussion. Tkbrett (✉) 19:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Old habits die hard. The artist's albums and discography are already linked in the artist navbox at the bottom of the page. If not, a "See also" link to the artist's discography or section within the artist's page should be sufficient. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to keep this in the infobox, except that people are so used to seeing it that they have come to expect it. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I honestly hadn't thought of this before. On balance, I don't think the chronology section has much utility, especially when you can only see the previous and next items. A navbox gives you the whole picture, which is both more informative and easier to navigate. The infobox chronology field appears to be the worst of both wolds. Popcornfud (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

But for what little apparent utility it has, it's not quite zero utility, and it doesn't take up much space. I don't see the harm in leaving it be, especially since it'd just take more editing time to remove every single one from all the hundreds of bajillions of album and song articles we have. QuietHere (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

it'd just take more editing time to remove every single one from all the hundreds of bajillions of album and song articles we have

I don't think that argument has much weight. If we simply decided not to use them any more, editors would be free to spend as much or as little time as they like removing them where they see them per the new consensus, no grand rush.

(I also wonder if we could simply deprecate the field in the infobox and they'd be hidden everywhere automatically? But that's beyond my ken.) Popcornfud (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be a simple operation for a bot, as was most recently used to remove the |format= parameter. Even easier, the infobox coding for |prev_title=, |prev_year=, etc. could be removed and none of the entries would be displayed and could be removed from infobox later. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

For me personally, I use the infobox chronology to navigate, and when I want the bigger picture I go to the artist's discography page. I can't say I've ever navigated using a nav box, since it's place at the bottom of the page makes it inconvenient (I guess I need to save calories from scrolling all the way down). Tkbrett (✉) 16:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

A similar argument (although without the calorie savings) was used for keeping album track listings in song infoboxes ("easier than clicking on the album"). However, after more album and artist navboxes were added to the articles, they just seemed to fall out of use. So I guess it is possible to change ingrained habits. (PS: clicking on the last entry on the TOC box (often "External links") takes you right there without any messy scrolling). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

No. I see its utility being in the chronology aspect of it: what preceded it, and what succeeded it. SWinxy (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• I am thinking about this some more. The MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE guideline gave me pause:

When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: 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.

This makes sense to me. And it pushes me into thinking we should remove the next/previous releases entirely. I just don't think it's the kind of thing we should be using infoboxes for. Popcornfud (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

A worthwhile thought to consider, sure, but I would move it to another discussion as it falls well outside the scope of this RfC. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Reliable source discussion: HipHopCanada

HipHopCanada is a Canadian hip-hop website (see Draft:HipHopCanada). Stated by the Ottawa Business Journal as being "one of Canada’s premiere hip-hop music media outlets"[1]. Interviews cited in HipHopDX[2][3], Complex[4], quoted in SooToday.com[5]. Website seems to have editorial oversight (Authors list, Vibe mention) Is this a suitable generally reliable source? Mbdfar (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks promising to me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Relevant Good Article nomination

I've put some time into This Stupid World and any feedback or edits to improve it are welcome. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this considered a reliable source?

I was doing some research on the best selling jazz albums, and came across this article [6] is this considered reliable enough to mention that Kind of Blue is the best selling instrumental jazz album? Along with Come Away with Me and Breathless being best sellers too? Pillowdelight (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Their about page says they're only two years old, and the author of that piece calls himself a blogger and doesn't appear to have a last name listed anywhere that we could use to check for credentials. I suspect the site is too new to have proven itself, even if it meets other qualifications. And there are many better sources telling you how well those three albums sold given how huge they all are, including ones already in the leads of the latter two articles. I would also question that Kind of Blue claim given its article claims that Bitches Brew is Davis' best-selling album. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Consensus check: "Final album"

Is it OK to describe something as a "final album" when the act has retired or disbanded?

This is an issue I have seen divide opinion on Wikipedia, such as on the Pink Floyd album The Endless River and more recently in this edit by @Adamtb24 on Random Access Memories by Daft Punk.

I was once content to describe an album as "final" if that's what the artist or sources called it. However, I've since shifted my thinking and now believe this creates a WP:CRYSTALBALL problem. How are we to know the album will be their last? A lot of the time the artist doesn't even know. After all, the article on The Division Bell once described it as Pink Floyd's "final album" too. It's safer — and surely sufficient — to mention instead that the album was the last before the artist retired/band split up/whatever. Popcornfud (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I generally remove the "final" wording, though I also try to "pick my battles" too - I don't usually bother reverting/maintaining exceedingly unlikely scenarios. Recent examples I've come across include Audioslave and Tom Petty's final solo albums. I wouldn't object to someone removing "final" from their last albums released, but another album from either is so exceedingly unlikely that I didn't bother removing it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. I think it's easy enough to assume that "last" could mean "for the time being until something else comes up", and if it ever does then it's easy enough to correct. And with some examples, such as the two Serge picked, it's exceedingly unlikely that will ever change so why not just say so? I wouldn't say it's all that necessary to include in most cases, but it doesn't hurt. And in some cases, such as the upcoming "last album" from Juice Wrld, it would be weird to not include in that article whenever it arrives given the apparent emphasis on it being his last. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Most of the time this doesn't bother me if the band has been split up for a protracted period, but I really think this is something that is dependent on context every time and thus it makes it difficult to make any standard for. The easiest thing to do would be to just ditch the practice, honestly. There are so many variables to consider when judging whether this statement is appropriate that it's not worth the hassle in my opinion. For example, if it is known there is significant amounts of material that is unreleased, like QuietHere mentioned about Juice Wrld, it might not be appropriate to say "final" unless confirmed by other sources. "Final", by itself, only really makes sense to me when a group actually breaks up. In the cases of groups which have extended periods of inactivity where it is unclear that the band has fully split or there is an extended hiatus involved, I would recommend seeking individual consensus on a use of "final album thus far", which I know I have used in the past but don't recall the example. But really, while that is a personal preference, I think that's too complicated a fix for me to really want to recommend we implement as standardized practice. dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I can think of plenty of cases when bands have split up and said there will be no more music, and then released new albums. LCD Soundsystem, anyone?

For me, there's simply no advantage in including the word "final". It doesn't allow us to explain anything we can't explain otherwise, and avoiding it reduces the risk of us saying something untrue. Popcornfud (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, I think it really comes down to whether or not we've got a source that the musician/band is no longer planning on releasing further albums. I remove "final" from Foo Fighters because they've said they plan on continuing, and from Linkin Park because they've said don't know how they'll proceed. But I keep it when we're talking about Tom Petty, who said he was going to stop doing solo albums well before his death. And that sort of approach complies with CRYSTAL too - it's okay to make claims about the future when it's properly sourced. Sergecross73 msg me 22:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking (i.e. in the case of bands that have split), I don't personally consider it a problem at all, or see how it violates CRYSTALBALL. That is, if a band reforms, the 'final' wording from their last pre-split release can simply (and obv will) be removed, much as the tense in the band article's lead would change from was to is. It isn't to say Wikipedia was disreputable, or is retroactively disreputable, for having said 'final' until then. Moreover, it would seem pretty inevitable to me that if RAM didn't say the fourth and final album it would say the fourth album and then somewhere near note that it was still their final album before their split, which would be unnecessarily clunky when the 'fourth and final' ties the points simply.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

My 1.5 cents: I think the term "final" is okay in the moment, but when the previously kaput artist comes back with a new album, a WP editor must go back to the now-previous album and remove the word "final" from that article. For well-known artists there are probably many active editors who will catch this, but for the not-so-famous it might just sit there forever. So the term might be more trouble than it's worth. But regardless, is this discussion intended to result in some sort of effort to remove the term "final" from all album articles where it is used now? That will be many thousands of articles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think "so now we have to go and change thousands of articles" needs to be the outcome of a consensus check, and to be honest I sometimes think this concern is an obstacle to getting consensus in the first place. It just means you get some security about the best way to proceed, and editors can go around editing in accordance to that consensus from that point on, at whatever speed they feel is appropriate. Popcornfud (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I would argue Wikipedia is not paper. If there's a lot of people editing the article to add back "final album" then I would say there's definitely something to gauge on if it's a necessary battle. I've been on here for almost 20 years and it seems sufficient to state what a group or person's final work is at the moment.

If you want to think of anything that should be a guideline, I think WP:CRYSTAL covers it. Anything where you are using the words might, could, maybe, etc is speculation until it's official sources. We used to have articles about upcoming albums or rumors of significant coverage such as Chinese Democracy and Detox (looks like that's no longer an article). The project has adapted to those changes. – The Grid (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

PMStudio unreliable source?

I was looking at the article for the recently released Owl City album Coco Moon (now a redirect to the band) and saw that most of the article was sourced to a website called http://pmstudio.com. Having a quick look at that site, it appears to only post brief pieces which are entirely based on press releases rather than any original journalism. That look was unfortunately cut short because the website started to lag out my entire browser until I closed all the tabs I had of it for some reason, but in those couple minutes, everything I saw suggested this site is unreliable. And since it turns out the site is used on 171 articles at present, I figured I should bring up my concern here so other editors can give it a better look and possibly affirm my suspicion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I always viewed press releases as something of a contextual-dependent situation which determined if it was due weight or not. It is probably overused on Wikipedia. If this is entirely what sourced Coco Moon, a redirect is appropriate. dannymusiceditor ^oops 14:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC at King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime

An RFC regarding Manual of Style practices is currently underway at Talk:King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime#RFC on the inclusion of a "genre" field in the infobox; an article within the scope of this Wikiproject. 151.224.190.163 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Can an album be notable on its own?

What are the rules with this? There is an album I want to create an article for - nothing major, probably Start-level or possibly C-level, depending on what I can find - but the artist who created it not only lacks their own article, but is wholly non-notable (and unknown) outside the album itself. A few non-reliable sources (like Discogs) tell me this album is the only thing that is known about its creator. But there is I think probably enough RS commentary for a small article about the album itself. Would it be appropriate to create an article for just the album or should the information be folded into an article for the artist, even though - as I say - there is nothing I can use about the artist directly, or neither? I ask because I once faced speedy deletion when I did this before, until I contested the decision and made an article for the artist - but an album like Pru, for instance, went as far as becoming a Featured Article before Pru herself had her own article, making me wonder if I've missed something. Thanks.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

"Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline." So yes. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I've made several album articles for artists who don't have pages, such as Witch Egg and I Love to Lie, as well as ones that didn't at the time like Forest Floor, Loggerhead, and four out of the five Marisa Anderson albums which have articles now. I even made Exorcise Tape which survived an AfD despite the duo behind it having been deleted in another AfD just before. All of these articles are fine so long as the coverage is there, and it would be silly if the rules acted any other way. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. This has given me the confidence to give it a go.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is the A9 speedy delete criterion that my previous article Songs of Paapieye was originally failed under because SK Kakraba at the time did not have an article. I am struggling to reconcile A9, or at least how its been used, with Notability (music)#Albums. --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If the sourcing was on the same level then as it is now, then that was a bullshit use of A9. There's very clearly a credible claim of significance here. My understanding is that A9 should be reserved for stuff that's hopeless in terms of sourcing, and Songs of Paapieye is far from hopeless. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review for Dungeons & Dragons (album)

I have nominated Dungeons & Dragons (album) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

AfD notice

Got an AfD for the magazine Impose running right now. Been relisted twice and is pretty much split down the middle now. Extra relevant to this project since it partly questions whether this music magazine's apparent reliability supports its notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Label cats for reissues

It is noted on Pagan Day that both it and Allegory and Self were reissued in 2017 by Sacred Bones Records and Dais Records. Would it make sense to include those articles in Category:Sacred Bones Records albums and Category:Dais Records albums, or should label cats be limited to the initial release's label like how it's done in the infobox? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Could users please comment on my RfC

It is located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music#RfC:_Using_the_album_ratings_of_Colin_Larkin_(author_of_The_Virgin_Encyclopedia_of_Popular_Music_and_its_offshoot_tomes)_on_Wikipedia

Thanks. 81.157.51.237 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Source reliability query

Started a query regarding the reliability of the music website Earmilk, and of course that concerns this WikiProject as well so here's a notice about it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Now that a project-independent quality assessment has been implemented, I am curious to find out if members of this project feel that this one should opt out of it. Changes made by this edit to {{WikiProject Albums}} have removed classifications of future and redirect (anything assessed as "future-class" now comes up as "unassessed" and "redirect-class" is now displayed as "NA-class"). Are there other ramifications to this change that affect how others utilize this project and the project banner? Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Rufus Wainwright album : Track listing for reissue

I've shared a link at the bottom of Talk:Rufus Wainwright (album) which confirms the track listing for a 25th anniversary reissue of the album, if someone here knows how to update the track listing section appropriately. Thanks in advance for any help here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Someone has added the new tracks, but the Good article could still use help with formatting. Also, can editors weigh in on the appropriateness of adding the new album cover? I'm not sure about the rules here. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of State to State (808 State albums)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on State to State (808 State albums) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Quazar albums has been nominated for discussion

Category:Quazar albums has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Doolittle (album) Featured article review

I have nominated Doolittle (album) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding dates to album listings in a template

I was visiting Template:Pentatonix, removing non-linking album listings as inappropriate for navigation templates, and I noted that the template had dates applies to all the albums and EPs. I don't recall seeing that before for templates, and I felt that dates were more for directories and should not be in the navigation box template. I read the guidelines in WP:NAVBOX, and I am not sure after reading it that it does clearly state that non-linking listings should be removed from Navboxes, and I am unsure about dates. I just reviewed the Navbox for Template:The Rolling Stones and Template:The Beatles albums, and see that The Rolling Stone listing includes dates and the Beatles albums listing does not include date, so I am guessing it is by personal choice. I would like to ask for thoughts on this. Mburrell (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes they are in there and I find them helpful for context. I recently made {{Phoebe Snow}} and {{Rick Danko}} and included them. Note that while there is a strong preference for existing, stand-alone articles, there could be times when including a redlink or a redirect that isn't bypassed could be appropriate, like if a band has five albums and we only have full articles for four, but the third redirects to their discography. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I've always taken it as a style choice. It's not unhelpful info and there's not really reason to not have them so long as the page doesn't get overcrowded. Like the Rolling Stones one might be better off without them just because of how big it is, but it's not a big deal. In the ones I've made I mostly don't add them, though a couple times (Tobacco and Sons of Kemet) I have and I think it looks fine with 'em. To be honest, I probably wasn't thinking about it much when I did make those and just did it because I happened to remember it was a thing I could add. But the rest that don't have 'em look fine too. So I guess it's editor's discretion unless more editors come along with a major consensus either way. QuietHere (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't recall the exact venue, but it was a big debate a few years back. Some felt it was helpful, while others didn't feel it aided in navigation and felt it should be removed. It ended up being a stalemate, with the only agreement being to treat it sort of like WP:ENGVAR, as in, don't Switch back and forth between formats. The fact that I'm the only one so far remembering this though is probably a testament to how little it's been enforced though... Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I remember the debate as well, I was just trying to find it before commenting. I'm also ambivalent about including the years or not, although like QuietHere, I think it can make things a bit difficult to read in a large navbox and just takes up room. I know that WikiProject Jazz has a rule of making the years in the navbox the recording date of an album, rather than the release date – for jazz albums it's very common that these dates can vary wildly, as live concerts may be recorded but only officially released years later. It does mean, however, that the dates and the chronological order vary between the infobox and the navbox, which I sometimes find confusing, and I wonder whether in these cases it's better to leave the navbox dates out entirely. Richard3120 (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

In that case I would stick strictly to release dates just to avoid that confusion and keep standard with other genres. QuietHere (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

There are good reasons for jazz using recording dates. Putting recording dates in a template is possible, as is including a statement that the years are of recording. I see no reason to change this. EddieHugh (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean if it's made clear that they're recording dates then I suppose it's fine. Excuse me, I hadn't seen any examples and I suppose I spoke out of turn. QuietHere (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It's fine. An example is Template:Lee Morgan (click on 'show'). However, I don't know how accurate it is! EddieHugh (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if it's clearly stated then it okay. EddieHugh, I do understand why jazz albums are often listed by recording dates: unlike albums in almost any other genre, which are generally both recorded and released in the same chronological order, jazz albums are often released years after recording and in haphazard order, with the result that there are albums being released now in the 2020s by musicians who died 20 or 30 years ago. Seeing dozens of "2010s albums" and "2020s albums" for long-deceased artists in the navbox would be weird, I absolutely understand that. My concern was simply that if it isn't made clear in some way, it could be confusing to the casual reader to see entirely different dates listed in the infobox and the navbox. Richard3120 (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. There's the additional point that published jazz discographies are usually presented by recording dates (release dates are often not mentioned). This also aids listeners, who are often interested in how a musician changed over time – this can be obscured by sequencing based on when record labels chose to release material. EddieHugh (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't doubt any of this, the main part of the discourse though is if that truly belongs in navigation templates or if it's more suited for discographies. If we're re-litigating the issue, I believe the latter, but if not, I won't push further. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Here are links to a couple of archived RFCs related to the topic:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive 37#RFC about album years in navigation templates
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 40#RfC on whether Navigational templates should have articles that do not have their own dedicated article, or are a redirect to their artists discography

--Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, thank you. This answered my questions. Mburrell (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Keep years for albums - I support keeping the year of release for albums in navigation boxes for musicians and musical ensembles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

My request at WP:CR was rejected

My request at WP:CR to formally close this discussion was rejected weeks ago. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Archived request. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Rightfully so. You should take their advice and stop asking for closure in so many unnecessary situations. Sergecross73 msg me 22:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Progarchy

Progarchy is a website dedicated to progressive rock. Its "About" page[7] includes "Our goal is to support beautiful music, specifically progressive rock in all its varied forms, through album reviews, interviews, concert reviews, and articles. We are all volunteers." It lists three "Editors", a number of "Progarchists", and appears to be well-organized. Currently, it's used as a source in 20 WP articles.[8]

A quick google book search[9] shows that Progarchy appears in a list of references for one academic-type book, where one of the listed editors is named in the main text. But that's about it; the other two editors don't show up and I didn't go through the Progarchists. The similarly named Prog Archives is listed on WP:NOTRSMUSIC with this discussion, but there doesn't appear to be a connection. Should Progarchy be considered a reliable source for WP purposes? Or perhaps just selected contributors?

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Progressive rock sources are a big problem in general for Wikipedia. The ones that are used most frequently for prog-related articles are Prog Archives, DPRP (Dutch Progressive Rock Page) and Sea of Tranquility, but none of them look like good sources to me, more like group blogs. But I also understand that it's difficult to find any coverage of this genre – the one genuinely reliable source that I know of is the UK's Prog magazine. Progarchy actually looks better than the three sources I listed above (it has editors and properly-conducted interviews with the big names of the genre), but I'll need to have a further look. Richard3120 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

IPs have been trying to add prog rock for Led Zeppelin's version of "In My Time of Dying" for over a year. The latest added Progarchy as a source.[10] Written by Progarchist Connor Mullin, it mentions the song in passing, "Zeppelin’s repertoire only became more progressive after the immense success of IV ... Physical Graffiti not only featured their longest song ('In My Time of Dying', eleven minutes)", before praising "Kashmir" as "one of the finest progressive rock songs ever composed".

A google book search for Mullin doesn't show he has written any books or is mentioned in any music-related ones. Anyway, it's a stretch to use prog rock as a genre based on the fact that it is "their longest song", unless there is something special about the source.

—Ojorojo (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

For "In My Time of Dying", or for "Kashmir"? Not sure how you can use a description of one song as a genre for a completely different song. Led Zep weren't particularly proggy anyway, throughout their career - not sure I would even consider "Kashmir" as prog rock, its not the first genre that comes to mind when the song is usually described. Richard3120 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. The other sources describe "In My Time of Dying" as blues-based – not surprising, given Page's slide guitar playing and the fact that it was originally recorded by Blind Willie Johnson. BTW, Prog Archives mentioned earlier is used in 181 articles[11] even though it is listed on WP:NOTRSMUSIC/WP:ALBUMAVOID as "Non-professional review website, fails WP:USERG". —Ojorojo (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

No opinion on source, but to me sounds like the specific problems with how the source is used may be easier solved by more stringent application of WP:OR (cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article) and WP:NEWSBLOG. PaulT2022 (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the "does not clearly support" approach is taken at the current Talk:In My Time of Dying#RfC on progressive rock. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

My request at WP:CR was rejected

My request at WP:CR to formally close this discussion was rejected weeks ago. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Archived request. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Release dates

What do you do if an album is first released in a country other than the band's native one BEFORE it's released in their own country? Does the first release, no matter where it is, always take precedence in terms of the listed release date? For example, Devo's Q: Are We Not Men?... seems to have been first issued in the U.S. on September 15, 1978, according to the liner notes of Pioneers Who Got Scalped: The Anthology (2000), but the August 19, 1978 issue of Record Mirror[12] says it was to be released in the UK on September 1. The MOS states Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified, and states the same for the label. So should the infobox/lead use the UK date and label? Or would that be odd for a U.S. band? —The Keymaster (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Two albums come to mind that list the foreign release first, Cheap Trick at Budokan and Frampton Comes Alive! They also include the first home country release date as well, so that may be an option to lessen the ? factor. Others will probably have examples showing either, so it may be worth standardizing. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

A definitive example of this is Aladdin Sane. For 40 years its release date was April 13, 1973. Well all of a sudden "new evidence" says it was April 20, but "made available" on April 19. Then this year it's officially April 19. Benoît Clerc's 2022 book says April 13 was its US date, and April 19 was UK, yet April 19 sits in the infobox and lead section currently. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The infobox should only show one release date, which should be the earliest known release date. Explanation of other release dates can be listed in article. Per Wikipedia's guidelines for the album release section in the infobox "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified." This is why we have a whole article attached to the infobox, so that a table of release dates and countries can be created, or it can be listed in the lead paragraph, or listed in a separate section. Keep infoboxes clean, and only list one release date, the first known release date, per Wikipedia guidelines. Mburrell (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mburrell I cited that guideline in my initial post, but I'm asking if there are exceptions when it comes to conflicts with country of origin, and others have pointed out examples of that. I'd agree that, ideally, only one should be listed. As Ojorojo suggested, this might be something to clarify at the template. The Keymaster (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@The Keymaster, I know that you listed that guideline in your initial post, and I am stating that there are no exceptions. Infobox should be kept clean, first known release date only.Mburrell (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zmbro Interesting. So in that instance they seem to be clinging to country of origin, rather than the first actual release date. The Keymaster (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

That's my takeaway. The US release dates for Hunky Dory and Ziggy Stardust were also reportedly before the UK ones: in the case of Hunky, December 17, 1971 (the UK one) is seen as the definitive (the US one was either November 17 or December 4 I can't recall atm); for Ziggy the date is June 16, 1972 for the UK while Billboard issues at the time suggested it was released in the US in May. I don't own Clerc's book so I can't see what he said about those unfortunately. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ojorojo Hmm. That actually makes a bit more sense to me, so maybe the template should be amended to say something like, When the first known release date conflicts with the artist's country of origin, list both in the infobox, or something along those lines. I'm just throwing out ideas here. The Keymaster (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. As far as I am concerned, there is never any excuse for listing anything other than the first release date in the infobox. I do not care if the country of origin has a later release date, keep the infobox clean and only list the first release date. I believe that all these examples where others are listing two listings in the infobox, one for first release and one for release in the country of the band or singer's origins, are all examples of infoboxes that need to be cleaned up. Do not modify the template guideline. Instead, fix these errors in the infobox listings. Mburrell (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Gonna side with Mburrell here. We have much better options for displaying this info (release section prose, release history table, etc.) than adding multiple dates in the infobox, especially when it's inconsistent with other articles which only have the first date regardless of the country. I think it's better to set a hard limit of one so we don't get anyone trying to add several. Country of origin is an overrated factor anyway; plenty of music acts get popular in countries aside from their own. Cheap Trick's popularity in Japan is the whole reason At Budokan exists in the first place. It's no wonder it released months later in their home country. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, so we are saying the release date of Q. Are We Not Men? A: We Are Devo! should be listed as September 1st, 1978, and that the label should be Virgin Records in the UK? If so, I can mention the U.S. date/label in the lead/prose, sourced from Pioneers Who Got Scalped. The Keymaster (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Another problem is that the release date currently listed is August 28, with the U.S. version being first, and is supposedly sourced from Simon Reynolds' Rip It Up and Start Again, but I'm not seeing that date in either of my sources. The Keymaster (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

[r to Keymaster's earlier ping] I'm a strong believer in the "less is more" approach to infoboxes and that allowing exceptions often leads to more cruft. But, seeing something unfamiliar in |date= and |label= may be confusing for the casual fan or reader. They may think it is an error and attempt to correct it. Perhaps it could be handled with an efn, but these and hidden notes are often ignored. Or subject the sources to more scrutiny – if a majority of the RSs give one date, while only one or two use a different date, that could be treated as a fringe or minority view left to a qualified mention in the main body only. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea of subjecting the sources to more scrutiny. I think what I'll do is poke around for as many professional sources as I can that list a release date and then weigh everything and proceed from there. As for pages that list multiple release dates in the infobox, I think I'll just keep the earliest date and move any other dates to the prose...as long as reliable sources can be found. The Keymaster (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Why does the artist's home country matter? What do you do with virtual supergroups like SuperHeavy that aren't really "from" anywhere? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

A couple of new templates that may save you some time typing and will help standardize references and language on album reviews

God only knows how many times I have typed "Editors at AllMusic Guide assigned this album a score of x out of five stars, with critic y writing..." or typing up a reference like <ref name="amg">{{Cite web |url=a |title=b |last=c |first=d |access-date=e |language=en-US |publisher=[[AllMusic Guide]]}}</ref>. To aid myself and others, I just made {{AMG ref}} and {{AMG text}}. I'm hopeful these will save you a little time when typing and can also ensure best practices for references. Re: the latter point, I just educated myself that undated web pages (which AllMusic is almost entirely composed of) should have date=n.d. if they use {{cite-web}}. And maybe 0.01% of instances actually have it. Any feedback is welcome. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Similarly:

• {{ADM ref}}
• {{MC ref}} (and the pre-existing {{MCalbum}}--I may whip up an ADM equivalent too).

―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion regarding pre-1975 RIAA certifications

From 1958 to 1974, inclusive, the RIAA defined a gold album as one which achieved $1,000,000 in sales at manufacturer wholesale prices, based on 33⅓ percent of the list price for each album. The thing is, if you use the Certification Table Entry template it instead writes "500,000 [certified units]", which was the standard in place from January 1, 1975 onward.

I have opened a discussion over at the Certification Table Entry talk page to resolve this issue for pre-1975 albums. Comments there are welcome. Tkbrett (✉) 13:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of a full tour schedule on an album when the tour is not notable by itself

Main article: This Stupid World § Release and promotion

I had assumed it was common practice not to put an exhaustive table of tour stops in an album article, but I find this to be ridiculous in an otherwise well-done Good Article that passed earlier today. As I noted in the second opinion I gave, however, I do not know of any specific discussion on the topic and I assumed everyone just knew that was unnecessary in an album and more commonly seen on tour articles that are actually notable themselves. I knew better than to start a debate about that during a GA review, lest I upset the proverbial apple cart of stability, so now I'm asking for thoughts. To put it simply, I think this is excessive, and should be trimmed down to a few sentences. Not to mention I thought we did away with collapsed lists as a MOS:ACCESS issue. dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Relevant discussion (in addition to the above): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_57#Tour_dates_in_album_articles, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Tour_sections?, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_63#Tour_sections?. The problem with collapsible lists is having them collapsed by default, not at all. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Nevertheless, previous discussions seem divided on the topic. dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Of including tour schedules? Yes, I do not see a clear consensus myself. I think it's perfectly appropriate: tours are promotional events for albums and saying there's a tour but not saying when it happened or where it went seems silly. For those who think it's superfluous, you can just collapse and move on. That's my take. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, but rather frankly, disagree. I think most any music editor would think such specifics, in an article not focused on the tour, is far too overwhelming for one album article. Most specify a nation or continent, where it began, and where it ended, and when it started and ended. If anything particularly of note happened at any particular shows, those details can be included. A table of such intricate detail is better suited to its own article, should it qualify for one. dannymusiceditor ^oops 22:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The table of dates should be removed. It's clearly out of scope and takes the article into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory. The dates should instead be summarised as something like "The tour comprised 50 performances across [location] between [date] and [date]." Suggesting that people simply ignore superfluous content isn't much of an argument for keeping it. Popcornfud (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be covered in broad strokes. Sergecross73 msg me 22:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't misinterpret me: what I wrote is that for this who think it's superfluous. I am not in the business of adding things that I think are superfluous to an encyclopedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, I understand. But telling people to simply ignore content they believe is superfluous is no argument. Clearly we should remove superfluous content, not ignore it. Popcornfud (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, and I'm not conceding that it is. But it's simple to overlook things that you think don't matter, but it's impossible to spontaneously include material that you think should be there. So if there's no consensus, we should err on the side of including it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think consensus is shaping up to be that it doesn't matter as much as you think it does, but preferably we should have more participation. dannymusiceditor ^oops 23:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:PROPORTION should apply: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Rather than listing details for every stop on the tour, the table information should be summarized in prose. This is consistent with WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." —Ojorojo (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It has been pointed that listing tour dates is addressed in the album advice page under WP:ALBUMSTYLE#Touring: "Do not list all dates here [in a tour section], instead mention the range of dates." It has been there since the page was created in December 2010 by Fezmar9. Perhaps it should be updated/expanded. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

To close the loop on this, it seem obvious that the inclusion of detailed tour dates is inappropriate broadly and in particular, I have removed the tour dates from This Stupid World https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=This_Stupid_World&oldid=prev&diff=1162724890 and created This Stupid World tour. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Relevant template best practice discussion

Please see Template_talk:Metacritic_album_prose#Subst'ing and weigh in. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The Idol (Music from the HBO Original Series)

There's been lot of recent activity at The Idol (Music from the HBO Original Series). There's a lot of repeated linking throughout. Any project members able to help clean up and expand this entry a bit? Help with cover art for the other EPs much appreciated. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

More opinions needed at The Chicks

The Dixie Chicks formed in 1989 and changed their name to the Chicks in 2020. Should the article refer to them as the Dixie Chicks or the Chicks before that point?

Discussion here. Popcornfud (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)