![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
Some EPs (especially for bands with borderline notability) don't warrant their own articles when the EP functions as a preview of or single from a full release (main album). I would think the EP would make a fine section within a larger release's article. What are the norms on situations like this? (I searched the talk archives but couldn't find anything.) And what are some examples of album pages that have handled situations like this well? czar · · 23:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Recently, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space reached a significant milestone, when the effort passed 90% completion. I'm not sure who's been working on those, steadily chipping away without any recent help from a bot, but I'd like to thank all the editors who've contributed to the effort. There are still more than 5,000 articles to go, but we're most of the way there. — Mudwater ( Talk) 12:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The moving infobox reviews effort is now at 95%. It took about six weeks to get from 90% to 95%. At the same rate we'll be done on November 2, but it looks like we're actually picking up some speed now that we're getting near the end -- I can tell by looking at the helpful graph that Delusion23 has added to that page. There are now less than 2600 articles left to do. This is the home stretch, folks! — Mudwater ( Talk) 17:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Moving infobox reviews is now at 98%. Less than 1100 articles to go. — Mudwater ( Talk) 21:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Good work, everyone! Now we can finally remove the functionality of the Reviews parameter from the infobox. MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 21:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Are any of the reviews linked to on Welcome to the Show notable? I'm not sure about any of them... Look like reviews from every metal blog in Europe. Del♉sion23 (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
You have been invited to join this discussion regarding an article that is a part of this WikiProject. Statυs ( talk) 21:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I've seen this site pop up a lot. I initially did not consider Mind Equals Blown a reliable source, but I did some research and it seems that it is.
Hello. I was advised to bring up www.rockfreaks.net here for consideration for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Review_sites. Having existed for more than ten years, RockFreaks.net is now the biggest independent online magazine in Denmark. It currently has over 5000 album reviews, 15,000 news items and 600 gig reviews, all of which were submitted by staff. Moreover, it has recently become a registered company within Denmark. If there's anything I have missed out or you feel I should add, please advise; if you have any questions, concerns and/or comments, I will be as compliant as I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirIndex ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I would appreciate it if you could please take some time to comment at Talk:Trouble_(Leona_Lewis_song)#How_is_iTunes_messed_up. Thanks — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Category:Classical albums by date has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 10:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The usage of Overexposed is up for discussion, see Talk:Overexposed (album) -- 70.24.245.16 ( talk) 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Will someone please explain to me why every album on Wikipedia that has an "All Music" review needs to have a link to its corresponding review on the "All Music" site? Some pages even have their reviews as part of the article itself. Why? Why is the opinion of critics from "All Music" required at all in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia? -- Mrlopez2681 ( talk) 07:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Since Metacritic, and to a lesser extent AnyDecentMusic?, seem like acceptable review sites, can a note be added to WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE that the reviews they use are acceptable here as well? Metacritic's list is pretty similar to the one at WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE, while ADM also uses UK, Australia, Germany, Ireland, and Canada review sources, along with some of Metacritic's more notable US sources ( [6]), such as The Skinny (magazine), Loud and Quiet, State (magazine), and The Sunday Times/ The Times. Dan56 ( talk) 17:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
An album under the scope of this project, Casting Crowns, is up for featured article currently. The article, if passed, would be the first featured article for a Christian rock album. Any members of this project are invited to comment on the article. Toa Nidhiki05 02:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Does this addition notable for inclusion? An accolade from a television network Fuse seems insignificant, and the editor who added it has a history of fancruft/puffing up this article by adding less notable review sources who gave the album a relatively higher rating. Dan56 ( talk) 04:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
A move discussion is taking place on the page Give It Away. Please give input. Oldag07 ( talk) 06:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The image File:Sweetheart2.jpg is up for deletion because the fair-use justification for this back-of-album image is held inadequate, since the only real justification for its inclusion is that it is the back of the album. If anyone can speak to our guidelines for cover imagery as they might apply in this case, I invite them to comment at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 December_20#File:Sweetheart2.jpg. Mangoe ( talk) 13:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Your help is appreciated with some REM albums. I made a tweak to Green (R.E.M. album) and to Document (album)--in my opinion, the chronology should not include compilations (and Document listed Succumbs as the next item). I suppose, however, that those REM compilations are totally notable in their own right; they're not regular Greatest Hits, so I am amenable to correction. Anyway, I'd appreciate your opinion and feel free to undo me, though I don't see what Succumbs should be doing in there since the chronology is usually reserved for albums. Drmies ( talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm having a disagreement with an editor at Talk:The Weeknd#Music... over whether an addition is trivial or not to a musician BLP article. Should the editor's addition of a song accolade and description be distributed to the associated album article, House of Balloons, or to the recording artist's article, The Weeknd, where it doesnt seem to have any biographical relevance (in my opinion)? Feel free to comment here or at Talk:The Weeknd#Music.... Dan56 ( talk) 02:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Chronicles of Chaos ratings and reviews are reliable or not? Can I use them in the Album ratings section? Thanks. Zheek ( talk) 21:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Like a Prayer#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, is anyone in possession of the album The Age of Adz and able to take a look for me at the Personnel (Credits)? I don't have it with me at the moment as I'm at my second home. Would be greatly appreciated; the article is currently a GAN. MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 11:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
How do you cite email correspondence?: I've emailed Ashmatic Kitty the album's label, and they have said that Sufjan Stevens has not released the Credits. So I have the answer, but how do you verify this? MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 09:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I merged the soundtrack into film. However, someone revert it. So I made discussion in the article talk page. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Please comment Since Template:Infobox album advises that artists' infoboxes should generally contain an unbroken chain from one album to the next and not separate chains for (e.g.) live albums, compilations, etc. and seeing as how that consensus was decided here, I figured it's appropriate to ask if other editors think that Pink Floyd's albums are exempt from this general rule and should have some other standard applied to them for determining how to navigate between their album articles. Other users are of the opinion that they are exceptional and have set about reverting attempts to create one unbroken chain from their first album to their most recent. If others want to argue that they are a special case, please explain how and what criteria by which we should create a chronology amongst their albums within the infoboxes. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Before we get that far, can somebody supply a reliable source that lists what Pink Floyd's "canon" albums are? The Best of the Pink Floyd / Masters of Rock, which saw a European but not worldwide release, crops up every now and again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
What I mean is, we need to agree on precisely what albums are the correct list to put in the "next" / "previous" entries on each infobox. The talk page of WikiProject Pink Floyd would be a suitable place to do this. Once we have agreed on a definitive list, we can successfully avoid confusion and disagreement in future by having a definitive place to point to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Since we don't have any consensus, I have tried to balance it by using what the Allmusic and Povey sources say and citing the former as a source. Hopefully that will stop editors reverting one way or the other - we'll see what arises from that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Why isn't Delicate Sound of Thunder, their first live album, in the chronology? Why are some compilations and not others? See Pink Floyd discography. - Freekee ( talk) 16:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Over at Template_talk:Infobox_album/color#Req:_Remix_EP a user requested a "remix ep" category. I see that there's a remix category and I see that there's an ep category, but what about those albums which are both a remix album and an extended play album such as Remixes (Coldplay album) and It's Time Remixes? Banaticus ( talk) 01:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The photograph at Commons:File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg has been deleted as a copyright violation. File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg is a local copy of this photo; as it's not currently used in any articles to illustrate, under a claim of fair use, the copyrighted album artwork it depicts, it qualifies for speedy deletion. In any case, the fair use provisions don't permit this photograph to be used in user-, template- and project-space pages. I note that it's currently used on WikiProject Albums-related pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and Template:User WikiProject Albums. Can I suggest that someone from the project locate all these uses and replace them with a freely licensed image? Otherwise these userboxes and infoboxes will break once the image is deleted. — Psychonaut ( talk) 09:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Much to my annoyance, a massive amount of useful links from Billboard's official site have changed in the past few months as a result of some stupid site upgrade, rendering all of them dead. To make things worse, Wayback Machine hasn't archived any of them. Examples of articles that used such links include The Extremist and Rising Force, to name but a few. The Billboard site used to be such a good one-stop shop for important chart information, but now they've gone and fucked everything up for WP purposes. Oh, what to do.. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 17:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I have a bot ready to repair all the chart URLs automatically (as Billboard is not automatically redirecting them). Feel free to discuss it at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chartbot, where my request for approval has been languishing.— Kww( talk) 21:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The bot to repair the Billboard site revision catastrophe has undergone its initial test run (see Special:Contributions/Chartbot. I uncovered a few small bugs in the initial edits, but any that I didn't revert are, to the best of my knowledge, good. If you have any issues with it, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chartbot is the place to bring them up.— Kww( talk) 19:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This user is changing an awfull lot of genres of albums. I hesitant to flag this as vandalism right away, since I have no intimate knowledge of those albums, but it seems to me that changing genres isn't something that is done lightly. Could someone look into this? Sitethief~ talk to me~ 00:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion occuring here regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the Wikipedia project. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 22:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you savvy editors can clue me in on how it is determined what publications are deemed unfit for reviews? It appears awfully random. I can certainly agree on some of them for inclusion, but others have been around for ages and offer consistent reviewing, at least in the heavy metal world. Thoughts? Best, A Sniper ( talk) 23:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
In an article I created about an artist ( Jim Neversink), I had made album infoboxes with pictures of the covers; the pictures were removed due to some new policy. Has this changed, and can I put the pics back again...? Thanks, SkaraB 10:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
file:Danny Boy Glenn Miller 78 10612.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 05:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Recently user:Dan56 removed the Rolling Stone magazine reviews from the articles The Beatles (album) and Abbey Road, see here and here. The reason for removal isn't clear but appears to have something to do with the fact that Rolling Stone did not use a star rating prior to 1981. By that logic, the Rolling Stone reviews for all albums released during that era (1967–1980) should be removed from Wikipedia. The purpose of the album ratings template is to provide a summary of notable professional reviews and omitting Rolling Stone, a leading U.S. music magazines whose reviews carry considerable weight, from the summary would be a glaring omission affecting both historical accuracy and neutrality by its absence. If others would like to comment, perhaps a consensus can be reached on whether or not to include Rolling Stone reviews in the album ratings template in album articles. Piriczki ( talk) 14:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. When we should create such redirects? e.g. redirecting "A" (album) to "B" (artist). "A" is an upcoming/released album without wiki article (red link). Zheek ( talk) 00:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This is just another album by the band Cowboy Mouth. Not especially notable. Meanwhile, there is a band from Athens, Ga. that has been using the band name "Mercyland" since 1985. It is notable in that the main songwriter, David Barbe, was in a Gold album selling band, Sugar. I tried to edit so it redirects to "David Barbe," but not sure I did it right. Your help is appreciated. Thanks. 174.48.177.60 ( talk) 18:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.177.60 ( talk) 18:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been discussed before or not, but lately I've seen album articles with additional chart tables for an album's singles, which already have their own articles, such as with this revision or this. The tables are often copy-pasted from the artist's discography article. Should this be avoided? It seems like undue weight and content forking, especially when the singles have their own articles and the information is found again at the discography articles. MOS:ALBUM#Charts doesn't directly address this. Dan56 ( talk) 03:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg was deleted as copyright violation. The image, which is used in the template {{ WikiProject Albums}} and related, will eventually disappear from the caché. I opened a discussion at TT:WPSONGS to discuss which image should replace it. You can join to it. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Now that the "2 vinyl records + 1 CD" image has been deleted, the "Parlophone LP PMC 1202" image is being used in the {{
WikiProject Albums}} and {{
User WikiProject Albums}} templates. While in some ways it's a cool image, it looks rather black and undifferentiated, so it's not that attractive or catchy-looking when used at a reduced size in the templates. I suggest that we use a different image instead. I propose that we use the "Record-Album-01" image, which I found on Flickr -- with appropriate licensing, of course -- and which looks nice when reduced to 100px for the {{
WikiProject Albums}} template. Here are the current and proposed images, reduced to 100px. —
Mudwater (
Talk)
02:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, how about this "Record-Album-02" photo for the new WikiProject Albums image? — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I must confess that File:Parlophone LP PMC 1202.jpg was my idea, some of the background is at Template talk:WikiProject Albums#Dead image link but that's not the whole story. To avoid the copyright problem that had caused File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg to be zapped, I wanted to find a free-use image. The easiest place to find those is on Commons, so I looked in commons:Category:Music albums in the hope of finding something that was easily recognisable as a record album, yet was not a single album cover - I thought that if there were no images showing several albums, then an illustration of an album label would be suitable. I spotted File:Parlophone LP PMC 1202.jpg towards the bottom, and recognised it for being the first album by one of the most significant pop acts ever; but being from almost 50 years ago, I thought it would be sufficiently neutral not to provoke arguments between fans of more recent artistes. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It's only been a few days, but it seems that the new proposed image is getting a very positive response. So, I'm going to go ahead and request that the {{ WikiProject Albums}} template be updated. {{ User WikiProject Albums}} isn't edit protected, so I'll just update it myself. Thanks to all who have commented here. — Mudwater ( Talk) 12:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to solicit opinions regarding the merge discussion happening here in regards to an Ozzy Osbourne song called Over the Mountain. Any input is appreciated, as we've so far been unable to reach consensus. ChakaKong talk 21:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The Bloc Party Featured Topic is currently at FTRC. The review can be found here. GamerPro64 15:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a debate going on the article for The End of All Things to Come whether or not genres need to be cited. If anyone has a moment, please come to weigh in their thoughts on the topic. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 12:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate concerning whether the article about Hugh Laurie's album Let Them Talk should use American or British style dates. Please join in on the talk page. The basic argument is that Laurie is British so the article should use the British style. The other side is that the music is blues (American) and the label is American and the album was recorded in America therefore it should use the American style. We would appreciate additional input while we work toward building a consensus. Thanks. SQGibbon ( talk) 17:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.
About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).
The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.
Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.
If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
While reading Thriller (album), I noticed that some of the sources to Billboard such as this one are dead: 1983 year end charts. I tried to find a replacement, and an archived version and could find neither. It seems that Billboard wants you to pay now for access to charts that are more than a few years old. Is there a good solution to this problem? It could be affecting hundreds of articles. BollyJeff | talk 17:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Technical Ecstasy regarding content from a magazine called Zoom. Any input in the discussion is appreciated. ChakaKong talk 20:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that for multi-CD albums, the track listing should number the tracks starting at 1 for each disc, as opposed to sequentially numbering all the tracks across all the discs. That way, the track numbers in the article will correspond to the track numbers on each disc of the album. For example, if an album has two CDs, and each CD has eight tracks, the tracks on the second CD should be numbered 1 through 8, not 9 through 16. This method is used in most multi-disc album articles -- see, to pick a random example, Anthology 1#Track listing -- but has not been followed universally. I propose that we update the "Track listing" section of the Album article style guide to make this clearer. What do other editors think? — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the album article style guide, here. — Mudwater ( Talk) 15:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I am hoping that some other members of WikiProject Albums have opinions about this question, and are willing to share them here. Thanks. — Mudwater ( Talk) 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if The Daily Vault should be considered a professional review site for adding their commentary to album articles. BV talk 19:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I added an album cover of the Teresa Teng album in The Story of a Small Town. However, I removed it based on one comment that it may violate "presence helps readers understand" rule. How can an album cover with the female singer on front violate "significant presence" rule when it is different from the film poster? Why is a soundtrack album art unnecessary? -- George Ho ( talk) 02:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone help me fill in the album cover art for Template:Joanne Gair?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
How will I determine notability of albums by Teresa Teng if reliable sources do not cover them except dandan youqing? Will I simply explain how songs originate from Japanese songs or song, like I did with Danny Chan's yat sang ho kau? Will I just add in credits of songs, like writers, and notes about them? Will I explain that they are Chinese renditions of English songs? How else without finding such sources? -- George Ho ( talk) 17:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Moving on to a different slightly related topic, how would meeting notability guidelines be more important than merely providing the essential tracklist and credits, which readers would like to mostly research about? If I must find sources, then I must understand Chinese (or find someone who fully understands it). But I don't think finding microform copies of old Chinese publications is plausible, especially when trying to Google it. And the way to find old publications would be forums most likely (or blogs). -- George Ho ( talk) 05:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like to propose the inclusion of Metal Blast as a reliable source for both music reviews and interviews. It is my belief that it complies with all of the requirements established in, e.g. WP:ALBUM/REVSIT and (per WP:RS). Metal Blast (www.metalblast.net) complies with the following requirements:
I trust that the above satisfies all the requirements to include this publication as a reliable source. I am looking forward to your comments on this (in the sake of transparency, it should be noted that I one of the editors of Metal Blast; however, I have never publicized the magazine on Wikipedia nor have I created a "page" for it. I have only limited my edits to add information to articles, following the community guidelines). MaxWestfalen ( talk) 20:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I've nominated the article 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) for consideration as a candidate for WP:Today's Featured Article, please see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, — Cirt ( talk) 20:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi ... I was wondering if anyone can point me, for music, to our rules as to which of the ELs we now accept, such as are reflected here, and our view on linkes to iTunes which I sometimes see as well. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I've seen plenty of various ways to indicate that a certain label released a certain album. However, I am unsure of the correct grammar to use, so I figured I would ask here and see if anyone really knows their grammar (this means I'm looking for an answer like this: "Such-and-such says you would use [this preposition] in this situation", not "well, I've always done it like this"). Here is the generic sentence: Album Title was released on January 1, 2000, through/by/on Label Records (I've generally used "by" in the past). So which of those is the correct preposition? MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not 100% sure that this talk page is the place to ask it, but I'm sure anyone who moderates this page will be able to help me out. I've been trying to improve Rocks and Honey as much as I can... and the other day I was looking through the Hungarian version which is currently nominated as a Featured Article. After scanning through the information there to see if there's anything that can be added to the article I've been writing, I noticed it says "Denmark Hitlisten TOP20 Album: #2" in the Chart peak list. It provides this link: [7]. Can this sort of chart information be used on an album page? I'm trying to work out if that's just a daily update, in which case I'm guessing there's no way I can say "on a certain date, the album peaked at number 2 on the Denmark album charts." Or can I? Thanks if you can help with this. Bonnietylersave ( talk) 17:58, 6 June, 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have an opinion as to whether MetalSucks is a reliable source for album reviews? It seems to me like it could go either way. Thanks.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 21:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I would avoid sources who don't use their real names. I mean, Axl Rosenberg, Sammy O’Hagar, Dummy Nosenothing? I have a hard time accepting the editorial oversight of people using names like these. ChakaKong talk 19:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a blog, not a reliable source for reviews. Nothing indicates the writers are professional music journalists. I call the big one bitey ( talk) 20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I came across an editor whose only edits seem to be adding reviews from Music Enthusiast Magazine to a number of pages. While I clearly see a possibly promotional motive on the part of that editor, I took a look at the site, and it doesn't look too bad, but I would like other opinions.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 00:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Since we have to be all technical about it, this discussion found that Blabbermouth.net was unreliable. If there are no objections to the points raised there, can I restore this removal from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources? Dan56 ( talk) 22:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is in dire need of an update, just for starters Uncut no-longer uses a five point scale they use ratings out of ten. We need to include more sources such as The Fly, Blurt, Fact, Filter, Under the Radar, American Songwriter, Classic Rock, Mixmag, Record Collector, The Skinny, Now, The Guardian, The Observer, The Independent, No Ripcord, Paste, This Is Fake DIY, Loud and Quiet, The Daily Telegraph. The Oakland Press ( Gary Graff). These are just a few that we need to consider adding to the list. HotHat ( talk) 20:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
What is our formal or most conventional way of listing band personnel in album articles? It seems that the vast majority list the lead vocalist first, typically followed by the lead guitarist or primary songwriter. Is there any rule in terms of the order in which the band members are listed? ChakaKong talk 13:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Made In Japan is under discussion, see talk:Made In Japan -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 23:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The page name for Izzy Stradlin's album 117° is "117 (album)". I thought that the reason for this was because the degree symbol is problematic to include in the page name, but then I checked the page for the Suzanne Vega album 99.9F° and see that the degree symbol can be used in a page name. I was able to correct the title of the song "117°" in the song list, which also had omitted the "°", but I can't change the page name. Hopefully someone else can do that. Thanks. 99.192.61.219 ( talk) 13:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Over the last few days, an editor has been attempting to put content in the article Dimensionaut about the band, Sound of Contact's upcoming tour. Because the tour isn't an album promotion tour, I don't see why the content should be in the album article, when it's already in the article on the band. Using what I view to be synthesis and original research with no reference to back up his viewpoint, the editor inserting the content continues to insist that the band's upcoming "Bring the Prog Back" tour is designed to be a promotion tour for their newly released album. Looking at Sound of Contact's own website (found here http://www.soundofcontact.com/tour-dates/]), you will see that there is nothing on their website that mentions anything about the tour being a tour to promote Dimensionaut. In fact, the very opposite seems true since there are scores of other bands that will be performing during this tour. If anything, the tour is designed to generate enthusiasm for the Progressive Rock genre (hence, the name of the tour). Simon Collins, member of Sound of Contact is quoted on the band's website in regard to the tour as stating, "We’re doing this tour with a lot of modern progressive rock bands carrying the torch forward into the future. It’s oddly poetic that we bookend the tour playing shows with some of the significant originators of the genre". Collins says nothing about the tour being promotional for their new album. In fact, there are all kinds of references on the web where you can find that the European tour they were on last month and into part of June was their promotional tour for the album. There is nothing anywhere online (that I can find) mentioning anything about this latest tour being designed to promote the album. Everything Vuzor uses as reasoning to call the tour an album promotion tour is his own use of synthesis and personal reasoning. You can see from where he derives his reasoning at the album talk page here in the section "Not a promotional tool". What's most important is that not once is he able to produce anything in the form of a reference that says the latest tour is for album promotion. He comes to that conclusion all on his own based on something said here, what someone else did over there, and how other bands operate. Again, this tells me that there is synthesis and original research at play -- both of which are just not allowed. What we need is consensus at the article and I am hoping that a number of WikiProject Albums project members will give their opinions so this can be settled. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Can I ask why it takes so long to have articles assessed here? One editor has been waiting patiently with his submission, At War with Satan, and that's been there for almost a month. Until a little while ago I had a submission of my own that I removed when I got too impatient with the process, while articles listed after and below both my submission and his were rated and removed before ours. I'm not trying to blame anyone, I just want to know why there seems to be a priority issue here. Are people just not willing to touch our articles or something? LazyBastard Guy 19:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know your criteria for notability, but you might want to check the album pages created here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/Eveeseses48 Despite being Japanese albums, on the Japanese wikipedia there are no mentions of the albums, nor of the artists, nor of the band itself. (I searched) Nicolas1981 ( talk) 09:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines for which reviews to choose, where there are a plethora of professional source articles available? I've noticed definite cases where the "resident" editors clearly want to favour the more favourable reviews, even where that produces something wildly out of line with the likes of metacritic's rating. If something uses a pro review from a magazine not on this list, due to, well, general obscurity, would more widely known and notable sources be preferred? Is inclusion on this project's "review sites" a strong indication of whether or not to use a particular review or not, or just a starting point? 84.203.32.161 ( talk) 01:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
There's a guideline somewhere that deals with this, but I can't find it now. Basically, the more established publications should take precedence, but diversity is encouraged, so maybe one or two less known publications. A lot of it depends on how many reviews there are. Albums with fewer reviews can afford to be more exhaustive. Also, alternative opinions should be taken into consideration. I hope that helps.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 03:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Once I tried to add a review by the Brazilian edition of Rolling Stone but was persistently reverted by some editors. Some said that there was another Rolling Stone review in the article (though the reviews are written by different people), other complained the review was in Portuguese, some questioned the quality of the source (is Rolling Stone really questionable?) and some even said the review wasn't right for saying the album was bad. In the end, the discussion leaded us to nowhere and I gave up. It was the only review in that section to harshly criticize the album, the others were all mixed to posivite. Victão Lopes Fala! 20:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking back through the archives, I saw that Chronicles of Chaos was rejected as a source, but without a detailed explanation as to why. It has an editorial staff, and other sources have referenced it ( Reno Gazette-Journal, Billboard, BraveWords, Extreme Metal: Music and Culture on the Edge).-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 18:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
User:STATicVerseatide
challenged the listing of The Boombox, The Boot, and Roughstock on
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources as "not professional." I added these sources, among others, without developing a consensus first, stating in my edit summary that if someone disagreed, they should challenge, which STATicVerseatide did. So, I will try to develop a consensus here:
The Boombox and
The Boot both belong to
Townsquare Media. This is the same company that owns
Noisecreep, which is already listed as a reliable source on the list. All three of these Townsquare properties formerly belonged to
AOL, who still controls
Spinner, another source already listed. All of these sites have editorial staff, so I don't see why The Boombox and The Boot should be excluded while Noisecreep and Spinner are kept.
As to
Roughstock, it belongs to Cheri Media Group. Incidentally, Cheri Media Group also controls
HipHopDX, a website which STATicVerseatide added without consensus on the grounds that it is used by Metacritic. Roughstock has a professional staff, which
User:TenPoundHammer, who writes for the site, can better explain than I.
I don't have any ill-will toward STATicVerseatide, I just want to demonstrate that these sources are indeed reliable.--
¿3fam
ily6
contribs
00:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
For inclusion at WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE, a publication or source must meet just one of the following four requirements, which are the following: HotHat ( talk) 07:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as " PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject like Thriller (album) or Revolver (album), but at the same time will affect articles with (album) disambiguation titles, in case if a new album is released. The discussion can be found at WT:D. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Thanks. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
there should be a comma after the word "sweat", look at the cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.10.169 ( talk) 16:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
This should be used in both association and conjunction with Metacritic to give a complement to each other. Both are notable and reliable for inclusion, for this purpose of being a criticism aggregator. HotHat ( talk) 05:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
A couple days ago I merged this with Halcyon (album) under the impression that geenerally reissues of this sort do not receive their own article. Her previous reissue "Bright Lights" doesn't have its own article, and neither does Florence + The Machine's Between Two Lungs or Pixie Lott's Turn It Up Louder. Is this new article really valid or should it be merged with the original version?— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 16:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I highly doubt the users who dispute it being merged would be able to see this discussion. How about taking it to the talk page instead, where it can actually be discussed? — Statυs ( talk, contribs) 18:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Melodic.net is among the major English-language arts publications. It is frequently cited by other reliable sources and considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area (it meet WP:NME). The site has been referred to by many reliable sources, which include, but are not limited to:
Recommend it goes into the professional sites section, as a reliable source with a wide selection of reviews on different genres.-- Strawberry Slugs ( talk) 14:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
Some EPs (especially for bands with borderline notability) don't warrant their own articles when the EP functions as a preview of or single from a full release (main album). I would think the EP would make a fine section within a larger release's article. What are the norms on situations like this? (I searched the talk archives but couldn't find anything.) And what are some examples of album pages that have handled situations like this well? czar · · 23:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Recently, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space reached a significant milestone, when the effort passed 90% completion. I'm not sure who's been working on those, steadily chipping away without any recent help from a bot, but I'd like to thank all the editors who've contributed to the effort. There are still more than 5,000 articles to go, but we're most of the way there. — Mudwater ( Talk) 12:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The moving infobox reviews effort is now at 95%. It took about six weeks to get from 90% to 95%. At the same rate we'll be done on November 2, but it looks like we're actually picking up some speed now that we're getting near the end -- I can tell by looking at the helpful graph that Delusion23 has added to that page. There are now less than 2600 articles left to do. This is the home stretch, folks! — Mudwater ( Talk) 17:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Moving infobox reviews is now at 98%. Less than 1100 articles to go. — Mudwater ( Talk) 21:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Good work, everyone! Now we can finally remove the functionality of the Reviews parameter from the infobox. MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 21:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Are any of the reviews linked to on Welcome to the Show notable? I'm not sure about any of them... Look like reviews from every metal blog in Europe. Del♉sion23 (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
You have been invited to join this discussion regarding an article that is a part of this WikiProject. Statυs ( talk) 21:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I've seen this site pop up a lot. I initially did not consider Mind Equals Blown a reliable source, but I did some research and it seems that it is.
Hello. I was advised to bring up www.rockfreaks.net here for consideration for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Review_sites. Having existed for more than ten years, RockFreaks.net is now the biggest independent online magazine in Denmark. It currently has over 5000 album reviews, 15,000 news items and 600 gig reviews, all of which were submitted by staff. Moreover, it has recently become a registered company within Denmark. If there's anything I have missed out or you feel I should add, please advise; if you have any questions, concerns and/or comments, I will be as compliant as I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirIndex ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I would appreciate it if you could please take some time to comment at Talk:Trouble_(Leona_Lewis_song)#How_is_iTunes_messed_up. Thanks — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Category:Classical albums by date has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 10:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The usage of Overexposed is up for discussion, see Talk:Overexposed (album) -- 70.24.245.16 ( talk) 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Will someone please explain to me why every album on Wikipedia that has an "All Music" review needs to have a link to its corresponding review on the "All Music" site? Some pages even have their reviews as part of the article itself. Why? Why is the opinion of critics from "All Music" required at all in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia? -- Mrlopez2681 ( talk) 07:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Since Metacritic, and to a lesser extent AnyDecentMusic?, seem like acceptable review sites, can a note be added to WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE that the reviews they use are acceptable here as well? Metacritic's list is pretty similar to the one at WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE, while ADM also uses UK, Australia, Germany, Ireland, and Canada review sources, along with some of Metacritic's more notable US sources ( [6]), such as The Skinny (magazine), Loud and Quiet, State (magazine), and The Sunday Times/ The Times. Dan56 ( talk) 17:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
An album under the scope of this project, Casting Crowns, is up for featured article currently. The article, if passed, would be the first featured article for a Christian rock album. Any members of this project are invited to comment on the article. Toa Nidhiki05 02:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Does this addition notable for inclusion? An accolade from a television network Fuse seems insignificant, and the editor who added it has a history of fancruft/puffing up this article by adding less notable review sources who gave the album a relatively higher rating. Dan56 ( talk) 04:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
A move discussion is taking place on the page Give It Away. Please give input. Oldag07 ( talk) 06:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The image File:Sweetheart2.jpg is up for deletion because the fair-use justification for this back-of-album image is held inadequate, since the only real justification for its inclusion is that it is the back of the album. If anyone can speak to our guidelines for cover imagery as they might apply in this case, I invite them to comment at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 December_20#File:Sweetheart2.jpg. Mangoe ( talk) 13:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Your help is appreciated with some REM albums. I made a tweak to Green (R.E.M. album) and to Document (album)--in my opinion, the chronology should not include compilations (and Document listed Succumbs as the next item). I suppose, however, that those REM compilations are totally notable in their own right; they're not regular Greatest Hits, so I am amenable to correction. Anyway, I'd appreciate your opinion and feel free to undo me, though I don't see what Succumbs should be doing in there since the chronology is usually reserved for albums. Drmies ( talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm having a disagreement with an editor at Talk:The Weeknd#Music... over whether an addition is trivial or not to a musician BLP article. Should the editor's addition of a song accolade and description be distributed to the associated album article, House of Balloons, or to the recording artist's article, The Weeknd, where it doesnt seem to have any biographical relevance (in my opinion)? Feel free to comment here or at Talk:The Weeknd#Music.... Dan56 ( talk) 02:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Chronicles of Chaos ratings and reviews are reliable or not? Can I use them in the Album ratings section? Thanks. Zheek ( talk) 21:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Like a Prayer#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, is anyone in possession of the album The Age of Adz and able to take a look for me at the Personnel (Credits)? I don't have it with me at the moment as I'm at my second home. Would be greatly appreciated; the article is currently a GAN. MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 11:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
How do you cite email correspondence?: I've emailed Ashmatic Kitty the album's label, and they have said that Sufjan Stevens has not released the Credits. So I have the answer, but how do you verify this? MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 09:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I merged the soundtrack into film. However, someone revert it. So I made discussion in the article talk page. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Please comment Since Template:Infobox album advises that artists' infoboxes should generally contain an unbroken chain from one album to the next and not separate chains for (e.g.) live albums, compilations, etc. and seeing as how that consensus was decided here, I figured it's appropriate to ask if other editors think that Pink Floyd's albums are exempt from this general rule and should have some other standard applied to them for determining how to navigate between their album articles. Other users are of the opinion that they are exceptional and have set about reverting attempts to create one unbroken chain from their first album to their most recent. If others want to argue that they are a special case, please explain how and what criteria by which we should create a chronology amongst their albums within the infoboxes. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Before we get that far, can somebody supply a reliable source that lists what Pink Floyd's "canon" albums are? The Best of the Pink Floyd / Masters of Rock, which saw a European but not worldwide release, crops up every now and again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
What I mean is, we need to agree on precisely what albums are the correct list to put in the "next" / "previous" entries on each infobox. The talk page of WikiProject Pink Floyd would be a suitable place to do this. Once we have agreed on a definitive list, we can successfully avoid confusion and disagreement in future by having a definitive place to point to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Since we don't have any consensus, I have tried to balance it by using what the Allmusic and Povey sources say and citing the former as a source. Hopefully that will stop editors reverting one way or the other - we'll see what arises from that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Why isn't Delicate Sound of Thunder, their first live album, in the chronology? Why are some compilations and not others? See Pink Floyd discography. - Freekee ( talk) 16:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Over at Template_talk:Infobox_album/color#Req:_Remix_EP a user requested a "remix ep" category. I see that there's a remix category and I see that there's an ep category, but what about those albums which are both a remix album and an extended play album such as Remixes (Coldplay album) and It's Time Remixes? Banaticus ( talk) 01:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The photograph at Commons:File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg has been deleted as a copyright violation. File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg is a local copy of this photo; as it's not currently used in any articles to illustrate, under a claim of fair use, the copyrighted album artwork it depicts, it qualifies for speedy deletion. In any case, the fair use provisions don't permit this photograph to be used in user-, template- and project-space pages. I note that it's currently used on WikiProject Albums-related pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and Template:User WikiProject Albums. Can I suggest that someone from the project locate all these uses and replace them with a freely licensed image? Otherwise these userboxes and infoboxes will break once the image is deleted. — Psychonaut ( talk) 09:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Much to my annoyance, a massive amount of useful links from Billboard's official site have changed in the past few months as a result of some stupid site upgrade, rendering all of them dead. To make things worse, Wayback Machine hasn't archived any of them. Examples of articles that used such links include The Extremist and Rising Force, to name but a few. The Billboard site used to be such a good one-stop shop for important chart information, but now they've gone and fucked everything up for WP purposes. Oh, what to do.. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 17:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I have a bot ready to repair all the chart URLs automatically (as Billboard is not automatically redirecting them). Feel free to discuss it at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chartbot, where my request for approval has been languishing.— Kww( talk) 21:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The bot to repair the Billboard site revision catastrophe has undergone its initial test run (see Special:Contributions/Chartbot. I uncovered a few small bugs in the initial edits, but any that I didn't revert are, to the best of my knowledge, good. If you have any issues with it, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chartbot is the place to bring them up.— Kww( talk) 19:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This user is changing an awfull lot of genres of albums. I hesitant to flag this as vandalism right away, since I have no intimate knowledge of those albums, but it seems to me that changing genres isn't something that is done lightly. Could someone look into this? Sitethief~ talk to me~ 00:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion occuring here regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the Wikipedia project. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 22:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you savvy editors can clue me in on how it is determined what publications are deemed unfit for reviews? It appears awfully random. I can certainly agree on some of them for inclusion, but others have been around for ages and offer consistent reviewing, at least in the heavy metal world. Thoughts? Best, A Sniper ( talk) 23:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
In an article I created about an artist ( Jim Neversink), I had made album infoboxes with pictures of the covers; the pictures were removed due to some new policy. Has this changed, and can I put the pics back again...? Thanks, SkaraB 10:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
file:Danny Boy Glenn Miller 78 10612.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 05:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Recently user:Dan56 removed the Rolling Stone magazine reviews from the articles The Beatles (album) and Abbey Road, see here and here. The reason for removal isn't clear but appears to have something to do with the fact that Rolling Stone did not use a star rating prior to 1981. By that logic, the Rolling Stone reviews for all albums released during that era (1967–1980) should be removed from Wikipedia. The purpose of the album ratings template is to provide a summary of notable professional reviews and omitting Rolling Stone, a leading U.S. music magazines whose reviews carry considerable weight, from the summary would be a glaring omission affecting both historical accuracy and neutrality by its absence. If others would like to comment, perhaps a consensus can be reached on whether or not to include Rolling Stone reviews in the album ratings template in album articles. Piriczki ( talk) 14:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. When we should create such redirects? e.g. redirecting "A" (album) to "B" (artist). "A" is an upcoming/released album without wiki article (red link). Zheek ( talk) 00:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This is just another album by the band Cowboy Mouth. Not especially notable. Meanwhile, there is a band from Athens, Ga. that has been using the band name "Mercyland" since 1985. It is notable in that the main songwriter, David Barbe, was in a Gold album selling band, Sugar. I tried to edit so it redirects to "David Barbe," but not sure I did it right. Your help is appreciated. Thanks. 174.48.177.60 ( talk) 18:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.177.60 ( talk) 18:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been discussed before or not, but lately I've seen album articles with additional chart tables for an album's singles, which already have their own articles, such as with this revision or this. The tables are often copy-pasted from the artist's discography article. Should this be avoided? It seems like undue weight and content forking, especially when the singles have their own articles and the information is found again at the discography articles. MOS:ALBUM#Charts doesn't directly address this. Dan56 ( talk) 03:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg was deleted as copyright violation. The image, which is used in the template {{ WikiProject Albums}} and related, will eventually disappear from the caché. I opened a discussion at TT:WPSONGS to discuss which image should replace it. You can join to it. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Now that the "2 vinyl records + 1 CD" image has been deleted, the "Parlophone LP PMC 1202" image is being used in the {{
WikiProject Albums}} and {{
User WikiProject Albums}} templates. While in some ways it's a cool image, it looks rather black and undifferentiated, so it's not that attractive or catchy-looking when used at a reduced size in the templates. I suggest that we use a different image instead. I propose that we use the "Record-Album-01" image, which I found on Flickr -- with appropriate licensing, of course -- and which looks nice when reduced to 100px for the {{
WikiProject Albums}} template. Here are the current and proposed images, reduced to 100px. —
Mudwater (
Talk)
02:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, how about this "Record-Album-02" photo for the new WikiProject Albums image? — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I must confess that File:Parlophone LP PMC 1202.jpg was my idea, some of the background is at Template talk:WikiProject Albums#Dead image link but that's not the whole story. To avoid the copyright problem that had caused File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg to be zapped, I wanted to find a free-use image. The easiest place to find those is on Commons, so I looked in commons:Category:Music albums in the hope of finding something that was easily recognisable as a record album, yet was not a single album cover - I thought that if there were no images showing several albums, then an illustration of an album label would be suitable. I spotted File:Parlophone LP PMC 1202.jpg towards the bottom, and recognised it for being the first album by one of the most significant pop acts ever; but being from almost 50 years ago, I thought it would be sufficiently neutral not to provoke arguments between fans of more recent artistes. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It's only been a few days, but it seems that the new proposed image is getting a very positive response. So, I'm going to go ahead and request that the {{ WikiProject Albums}} template be updated. {{ User WikiProject Albums}} isn't edit protected, so I'll just update it myself. Thanks to all who have commented here. — Mudwater ( Talk) 12:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to solicit opinions regarding the merge discussion happening here in regards to an Ozzy Osbourne song called Over the Mountain. Any input is appreciated, as we've so far been unable to reach consensus. ChakaKong talk 21:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The Bloc Party Featured Topic is currently at FTRC. The review can be found here. GamerPro64 15:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a debate going on the article for The End of All Things to Come whether or not genres need to be cited. If anyone has a moment, please come to weigh in their thoughts on the topic. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 12:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate concerning whether the article about Hugh Laurie's album Let Them Talk should use American or British style dates. Please join in on the talk page. The basic argument is that Laurie is British so the article should use the British style. The other side is that the music is blues (American) and the label is American and the album was recorded in America therefore it should use the American style. We would appreciate additional input while we work toward building a consensus. Thanks. SQGibbon ( talk) 17:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.
About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).
The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.
Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.
If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
While reading Thriller (album), I noticed that some of the sources to Billboard such as this one are dead: 1983 year end charts. I tried to find a replacement, and an archived version and could find neither. It seems that Billboard wants you to pay now for access to charts that are more than a few years old. Is there a good solution to this problem? It could be affecting hundreds of articles. BollyJeff | talk 17:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Technical Ecstasy regarding content from a magazine called Zoom. Any input in the discussion is appreciated. ChakaKong talk 20:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that for multi-CD albums, the track listing should number the tracks starting at 1 for each disc, as opposed to sequentially numbering all the tracks across all the discs. That way, the track numbers in the article will correspond to the track numbers on each disc of the album. For example, if an album has two CDs, and each CD has eight tracks, the tracks on the second CD should be numbered 1 through 8, not 9 through 16. This method is used in most multi-disc album articles -- see, to pick a random example, Anthology 1#Track listing -- but has not been followed universally. I propose that we update the "Track listing" section of the Album article style guide to make this clearer. What do other editors think? — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the album article style guide, here. — Mudwater ( Talk) 15:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I am hoping that some other members of WikiProject Albums have opinions about this question, and are willing to share them here. Thanks. — Mudwater ( Talk) 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if The Daily Vault should be considered a professional review site for adding their commentary to album articles. BV talk 19:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I added an album cover of the Teresa Teng album in The Story of a Small Town. However, I removed it based on one comment that it may violate "presence helps readers understand" rule. How can an album cover with the female singer on front violate "significant presence" rule when it is different from the film poster? Why is a soundtrack album art unnecessary? -- George Ho ( talk) 02:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone help me fill in the album cover art for Template:Joanne Gair?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
How will I determine notability of albums by Teresa Teng if reliable sources do not cover them except dandan youqing? Will I simply explain how songs originate from Japanese songs or song, like I did with Danny Chan's yat sang ho kau? Will I just add in credits of songs, like writers, and notes about them? Will I explain that they are Chinese renditions of English songs? How else without finding such sources? -- George Ho ( talk) 17:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Moving on to a different slightly related topic, how would meeting notability guidelines be more important than merely providing the essential tracklist and credits, which readers would like to mostly research about? If I must find sources, then I must understand Chinese (or find someone who fully understands it). But I don't think finding microform copies of old Chinese publications is plausible, especially when trying to Google it. And the way to find old publications would be forums most likely (or blogs). -- George Ho ( talk) 05:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like to propose the inclusion of Metal Blast as a reliable source for both music reviews and interviews. It is my belief that it complies with all of the requirements established in, e.g. WP:ALBUM/REVSIT and (per WP:RS). Metal Blast (www.metalblast.net) complies with the following requirements:
I trust that the above satisfies all the requirements to include this publication as a reliable source. I am looking forward to your comments on this (in the sake of transparency, it should be noted that I one of the editors of Metal Blast; however, I have never publicized the magazine on Wikipedia nor have I created a "page" for it. I have only limited my edits to add information to articles, following the community guidelines). MaxWestfalen ( talk) 20:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I've nominated the article 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) for consideration as a candidate for WP:Today's Featured Article, please see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, — Cirt ( talk) 20:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi ... I was wondering if anyone can point me, for music, to our rules as to which of the ELs we now accept, such as are reflected here, and our view on linkes to iTunes which I sometimes see as well. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I've seen plenty of various ways to indicate that a certain label released a certain album. However, I am unsure of the correct grammar to use, so I figured I would ask here and see if anyone really knows their grammar (this means I'm looking for an answer like this: "Such-and-such says you would use [this preposition] in this situation", not "well, I've always done it like this"). Here is the generic sentence: Album Title was released on January 1, 2000, through/by/on Label Records (I've generally used "by" in the past). So which of those is the correct preposition? MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not 100% sure that this talk page is the place to ask it, but I'm sure anyone who moderates this page will be able to help me out. I've been trying to improve Rocks and Honey as much as I can... and the other day I was looking through the Hungarian version which is currently nominated as a Featured Article. After scanning through the information there to see if there's anything that can be added to the article I've been writing, I noticed it says "Denmark Hitlisten TOP20 Album: #2" in the Chart peak list. It provides this link: [7]. Can this sort of chart information be used on an album page? I'm trying to work out if that's just a daily update, in which case I'm guessing there's no way I can say "on a certain date, the album peaked at number 2 on the Denmark album charts." Or can I? Thanks if you can help with this. Bonnietylersave ( talk) 17:58, 6 June, 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have an opinion as to whether MetalSucks is a reliable source for album reviews? It seems to me like it could go either way. Thanks.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 21:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I would avoid sources who don't use their real names. I mean, Axl Rosenberg, Sammy O’Hagar, Dummy Nosenothing? I have a hard time accepting the editorial oversight of people using names like these. ChakaKong talk 19:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a blog, not a reliable source for reviews. Nothing indicates the writers are professional music journalists. I call the big one bitey ( talk) 20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I came across an editor whose only edits seem to be adding reviews from Music Enthusiast Magazine to a number of pages. While I clearly see a possibly promotional motive on the part of that editor, I took a look at the site, and it doesn't look too bad, but I would like other opinions.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 00:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Since we have to be all technical about it, this discussion found that Blabbermouth.net was unreliable. If there are no objections to the points raised there, can I restore this removal from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources? Dan56 ( talk) 22:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is in dire need of an update, just for starters Uncut no-longer uses a five point scale they use ratings out of ten. We need to include more sources such as The Fly, Blurt, Fact, Filter, Under the Radar, American Songwriter, Classic Rock, Mixmag, Record Collector, The Skinny, Now, The Guardian, The Observer, The Independent, No Ripcord, Paste, This Is Fake DIY, Loud and Quiet, The Daily Telegraph. The Oakland Press ( Gary Graff). These are just a few that we need to consider adding to the list. HotHat ( talk) 20:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
What is our formal or most conventional way of listing band personnel in album articles? It seems that the vast majority list the lead vocalist first, typically followed by the lead guitarist or primary songwriter. Is there any rule in terms of the order in which the band members are listed? ChakaKong talk 13:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Made In Japan is under discussion, see talk:Made In Japan -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 23:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The page name for Izzy Stradlin's album 117° is "117 (album)". I thought that the reason for this was because the degree symbol is problematic to include in the page name, but then I checked the page for the Suzanne Vega album 99.9F° and see that the degree symbol can be used in a page name. I was able to correct the title of the song "117°" in the song list, which also had omitted the "°", but I can't change the page name. Hopefully someone else can do that. Thanks. 99.192.61.219 ( talk) 13:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Over the last few days, an editor has been attempting to put content in the article Dimensionaut about the band, Sound of Contact's upcoming tour. Because the tour isn't an album promotion tour, I don't see why the content should be in the album article, when it's already in the article on the band. Using what I view to be synthesis and original research with no reference to back up his viewpoint, the editor inserting the content continues to insist that the band's upcoming "Bring the Prog Back" tour is designed to be a promotion tour for their newly released album. Looking at Sound of Contact's own website (found here http://www.soundofcontact.com/tour-dates/]), you will see that there is nothing on their website that mentions anything about the tour being a tour to promote Dimensionaut. In fact, the very opposite seems true since there are scores of other bands that will be performing during this tour. If anything, the tour is designed to generate enthusiasm for the Progressive Rock genre (hence, the name of the tour). Simon Collins, member of Sound of Contact is quoted on the band's website in regard to the tour as stating, "We’re doing this tour with a lot of modern progressive rock bands carrying the torch forward into the future. It’s oddly poetic that we bookend the tour playing shows with some of the significant originators of the genre". Collins says nothing about the tour being promotional for their new album. In fact, there are all kinds of references on the web where you can find that the European tour they were on last month and into part of June was their promotional tour for the album. There is nothing anywhere online (that I can find) mentioning anything about this latest tour being designed to promote the album. Everything Vuzor uses as reasoning to call the tour an album promotion tour is his own use of synthesis and personal reasoning. You can see from where he derives his reasoning at the album talk page here in the section "Not a promotional tool". What's most important is that not once is he able to produce anything in the form of a reference that says the latest tour is for album promotion. He comes to that conclusion all on his own based on something said here, what someone else did over there, and how other bands operate. Again, this tells me that there is synthesis and original research at play -- both of which are just not allowed. What we need is consensus at the article and I am hoping that a number of WikiProject Albums project members will give their opinions so this can be settled. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Can I ask why it takes so long to have articles assessed here? One editor has been waiting patiently with his submission, At War with Satan, and that's been there for almost a month. Until a little while ago I had a submission of my own that I removed when I got too impatient with the process, while articles listed after and below both my submission and his were rated and removed before ours. I'm not trying to blame anyone, I just want to know why there seems to be a priority issue here. Are people just not willing to touch our articles or something? LazyBastard Guy 19:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know your criteria for notability, but you might want to check the album pages created here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/Eveeseses48 Despite being Japanese albums, on the Japanese wikipedia there are no mentions of the albums, nor of the artists, nor of the band itself. (I searched) Nicolas1981 ( talk) 09:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines for which reviews to choose, where there are a plethora of professional source articles available? I've noticed definite cases where the "resident" editors clearly want to favour the more favourable reviews, even where that produces something wildly out of line with the likes of metacritic's rating. If something uses a pro review from a magazine not on this list, due to, well, general obscurity, would more widely known and notable sources be preferred? Is inclusion on this project's "review sites" a strong indication of whether or not to use a particular review or not, or just a starting point? 84.203.32.161 ( talk) 01:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
There's a guideline somewhere that deals with this, but I can't find it now. Basically, the more established publications should take precedence, but diversity is encouraged, so maybe one or two less known publications. A lot of it depends on how many reviews there are. Albums with fewer reviews can afford to be more exhaustive. Also, alternative opinions should be taken into consideration. I hope that helps.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 03:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Once I tried to add a review by the Brazilian edition of Rolling Stone but was persistently reverted by some editors. Some said that there was another Rolling Stone review in the article (though the reviews are written by different people), other complained the review was in Portuguese, some questioned the quality of the source (is Rolling Stone really questionable?) and some even said the review wasn't right for saying the album was bad. In the end, the discussion leaded us to nowhere and I gave up. It was the only review in that section to harshly criticize the album, the others were all mixed to posivite. Victão Lopes Fala! 20:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking back through the archives, I saw that Chronicles of Chaos was rejected as a source, but without a detailed explanation as to why. It has an editorial staff, and other sources have referenced it ( Reno Gazette-Journal, Billboard, BraveWords, Extreme Metal: Music and Culture on the Edge).-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 18:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
User:STATicVerseatide
challenged the listing of The Boombox, The Boot, and Roughstock on
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources as "not professional." I added these sources, among others, without developing a consensus first, stating in my edit summary that if someone disagreed, they should challenge, which STATicVerseatide did. So, I will try to develop a consensus here:
The Boombox and
The Boot both belong to
Townsquare Media. This is the same company that owns
Noisecreep, which is already listed as a reliable source on the list. All three of these Townsquare properties formerly belonged to
AOL, who still controls
Spinner, another source already listed. All of these sites have editorial staff, so I don't see why The Boombox and The Boot should be excluded while Noisecreep and Spinner are kept.
As to
Roughstock, it belongs to Cheri Media Group. Incidentally, Cheri Media Group also controls
HipHopDX, a website which STATicVerseatide added without consensus on the grounds that it is used by Metacritic. Roughstock has a professional staff, which
User:TenPoundHammer, who writes for the site, can better explain than I.
I don't have any ill-will toward STATicVerseatide, I just want to demonstrate that these sources are indeed reliable.--
¿3fam
ily6
contribs
00:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
For inclusion at WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE, a publication or source must meet just one of the following four requirements, which are the following: HotHat ( talk) 07:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as " PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject like Thriller (album) or Revolver (album), but at the same time will affect articles with (album) disambiguation titles, in case if a new album is released. The discussion can be found at WT:D. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Thanks. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
there should be a comma after the word "sweat", look at the cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.10.169 ( talk) 16:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
This should be used in both association and conjunction with Metacritic to give a complement to each other. Both are notable and reliable for inclusion, for this purpose of being a criticism aggregator. HotHat ( talk) 05:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
A couple days ago I merged this with Halcyon (album) under the impression that geenerally reissues of this sort do not receive their own article. Her previous reissue "Bright Lights" doesn't have its own article, and neither does Florence + The Machine's Between Two Lungs or Pixie Lott's Turn It Up Louder. Is this new article really valid or should it be merged with the original version?— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 16:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I highly doubt the users who dispute it being merged would be able to see this discussion. How about taking it to the talk page instead, where it can actually be discussed? — Statυs ( talk, contribs) 18:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Melodic.net is among the major English-language arts publications. It is frequently cited by other reliable sources and considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area (it meet WP:NME). The site has been referred to by many reliable sources, which include, but are not limited to:
Recommend it goes into the professional sites section, as a reliable source with a wide selection of reviews on different genres.-- Strawberry Slugs ( talk) 14:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)