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 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
I have compiled a list of sources that are of significantly high quality that are not mentioned at WP:ALBUMS/REVSIT, which here are the following publications in alphabetical order by type of publication to consider. Please, Feel free to add your own sources to this list if you know of anymore. HotHat ( talk) 03:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
These are the sources, Metacritic considers of great repute. So, we should consider them, too. HotHat ( talk) 16:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's their official list of aggregated review sources. Dan56 ( talk) 04:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This source was not even considered for the fact of "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc." So, it is a professional review site because it is a member of Spin Media, which is a highly reputable media conglomeration, and this means we have to move on to consider the other criteria. They have a "(paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)", so this means that it satisfies that requirement. Furthermore, they are "independent of the artist, record company", so this means they are trustworthy and noteworthy for their reviews. So, the previous debate had two editors that failed to consider it against this criteria. HotHat ( talk) 03:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't really think such a reorganization is needed. If a site is questionable for use in BLPs, a notice can be posted next to it, as is already the case for Blabbermouth.net. As for distinguishing between sources for reviews and for general content, I think that isn't practical. While there are articles that are reviews, and others that are more general, both can be used for critical reception and general content info. Reviews often contain info about other albums or info about the artist(s), and general content articles will often include some critical analysis, so the distinction becomes blurred. As to eliminating the distinction between print and online sources, I'm fine with that, though with print sources it is nice to have the links to back issues. Maybe list those links in the url section of the table?-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 14:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I opened a RM discussion to move the page Paradise (Lana Del Rey album) to Paradise (Lana Del Rey EP), because it is an EP. The problem is that an user, named Status, insists that because WP:NCM#Disambiguation_2 states that "[w]hen necessary, disambiguation should be done using "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)"", he believes that articles should be disambiguated by "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)" alone, in other words "(EP)" is incorrect. For months he has moved a few pages from EP to album under the argument "An "EP" is a type of album. We do not say "[Artist] studio album" for studio albums", and we don't because the term "album" generally means "studio album". According to what I can read in NCM, this clause only refers the way articles should be disambiguated as an example to avoid article titles like Echo by Leona Lewis or Echo - Leona Lewis for example, not that they must be disambiguated this way, especially if we consider Wikipedians have used "(EP)" dabs for years.
According to WP:MOSALBUM "the term (EP) should be used for EPs, (video) for video albums and (album) for other albums, e.g. Insomniac (album) and Gas Food Lodging (EP)", which only favors the reason why it should be moved (not to mention this). I came here because Status insists that I should be the person who requests WP:NCM to include "EP" terms to the "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)" the guide refers--as if it is my fault he found a loophole and just because he moved some pages it represents now community consensus--. Anyway, because he won't come here, is there any possibility to change the ambiguity in NCM to avoid another editor interprets guidelines as policies to "When disambiguation is necessary, it should be done using "(band)" or "(group)", "(EP)" for EPs, "(video)" for video albums, "(soundtrack)" for soundtrack albums, "(film score)" for film score albums, and (album) for other albums, or "(song)" for songs and singles", or something better written but less ambiguous? Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I have added Country Standard Time as a recommended source for reviews. The bottom of the site indicates an editor credit (Jeffrey B. Remz), and the site's archives stretch back to 1995, from when it was a print magazine. However, it doesn't seem complete — I saw a 1995 review quoted online, but couldn't find it in the archives. In this case, I would assume that the best bet would be to find the actual issue. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, I just recently registered to this site and would like to point out the authenticity of the article Eraserheads: The Final Set 03.07.09. It's been over four years since 2009, and I have yet to find an official live album release of this concert. So far, no official release of the concert (digital or physical copy) can be found on any of the country's record bars, nor on any online retailers. And only a bootleg copy (likely recorded from the stage soundboard) has been circulating among various file-sharing sites, and any official release that does exist are in the form of digital video downloads (full concert or clips per song) from the SMART Mobile Store. The only site that does recognize this as an official live album has been Wikipedia, but I don't see any listed sources. Please take into consideration of this request in further clarifying the article. Thank you and keep the knowledge flowing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faroush Freyjadour ( talk • contribs) 09:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Looking in Category:Suzi Quatro albums, redirects for alternate titles or spellings of albums are being categorized the same as the album to which they redirect to. This doesn't make sense. If an album was determined to lack the notability for a stand-alone artice but still a reasonable search time, a redirect to the artist or discography could be created and categorized in the manner of any album with an article, but why would one categorize redirects like If You Knew Suzi in this manner? That's like categorizing the same album twice and gives the impression that they are not the same album. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Japanese song and album titles in regards to Japanese song titles and WP:ALBUM is relevant to the discussion.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 17:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I see the Albums project tag on the talk page of the film, Inside Man. I don't understand why.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Soul Crusher ( talk · contribs) has been going around album articles adding reviews to this guy, seemingly not for the first time. They're all on Scaruffi's personal web site, but he does appear to be a known expert on the topic. I dug through old discussions here and here. He does seem notable enough to have his own article, and I'm reluctant to scream " Unreliable source!", because for all I know he might be Italy's answer to Charles Shaar Murray and Jann Wenner. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me or does this," I . . . . plan to introduce excerpts from his reviews into the articles. I put links to his site in the ratings box so readers can easily access them at their convenience and so editors can have the source immediately on hand if they wish to cite him.." ("cite him?") sound a lot like AGENDA to anyone else? Though I am not quite sure what the agenda is. Scaruffi is on the record for saying that the public should NOT trust wikipedia and that editors should insert untrue information to underscore this "fact." Now we have someone cramming Scaruffi into every possible crack and crevice. This means what? Carptrash ( talk) 16:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I can understand not listing his review if it consists of an terse assertion, like Technical Ecstacy being "terrible". Although I should mention that editors regularly cite lists which is viewed as acceptable. For example, in the "release and reception" on the Vol. 4 page it states: "Kerrang! magazine listed the album at No. 48 among the "100 Greatest Heavy Metal Albums of All Time." This simply provides the reader with knowledge of the album's ranking on a list and says nothing of the author's opinion of why the ranking is as such. This is also true of the Q magazine quote listed later in the paragraph. If we are looking for only lengthy and in-depth analysis's to be included in the article, and I'm not saying that Scaruffi or Christgau fail to meet this criteria, why are these lists and rankings readily accepted?-- Soul Crusher ( talk) 20:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
image:AllisonCroweNewfoundlandVinylalbumbackcover.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 04:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Please take part in the above discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#What is the Correct Way to Treat Remixes? 17:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I Think If Someone is trying to make changes to the mixtape's genre they should at least add Hardcore hip hop to it because as you notice on the lyrics Earl Sweatshirt uses hardcore lyrics throughout the whole mixtape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.150.244 ( talk) 02:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I bought this album when it first came out and still have it. Recorded it and converted it to MP3's the other day. In order to populate the details on the files I came here. When I did I found that the tracks are listed in the exact opposite order that they're on my album. Mama Can't Buy You Love followed by Three Way Love Affair on side one. Are you Ready For Love alone on side 2. Daleshouse ( talk) 00:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be an error or misunderstainding regarding the certification status of the album "One World" and the hit single contained therein, "I Just Want To Celebrate," by Rare Earth. "One World" has not earned the Gold Record certification by RIAA as of today (August 31, 2013). The third and last Gold Record by Rare Earth is "Rare Earth In Concert," the following album to "One World."
Regarding the hit single off the album, "I Just Want To Celebrate," it did went as high as # 7 at Hot 100 of Billboard Magazine, but it has not earned Gold Record certification by RIAA as of today either.
Masato Ata a/k/a Boonzzy Tokyo, Japan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.26.120.123 ( talk) 02:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, can I use this. Thanks in advance. -- Niwi3 ( talk) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Can we just leave a note "staff reviews only"? And by the way, I haven't noticed that common users were doing album reviews on that site.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 14:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Getting back to the original question, yes this can be used as a source. However, there is clearly no consensus to add about.com to the list of reliable sources, thus the list can remain as is in that regard. ChakaKong Let's talk about it 16:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
From what I've gather in the past, it's okay to use About.com if you're only going to have an article GA. But as far as featured article material, the relibilty becomes questionable. Erick ( talk) 19:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Not all "staff" articles are reliable (I didn't even know users could submit articles). For example, Mark Edward Nero has written for various reliable newspapers, and is an established music journalist. However, Bill Lamb's bio says he is a "music journalist specializing in pop music. He has been covering the world of pop music on the Internet since 1999." He has no experience writing for newspapers or music magazines, and neither does he have an academic qualification in pop music. I often see his work used as sources for music articles, but they get slammed when taken to FAC. Check out the writer's expertise in their writing field, before seeing "About.com Guide" and thinking 'oh, OK good, that's reliable". Adabow ( talk) 20:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Can the community make comment whether this can be included in an article. Thanks.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 14:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The source is not self-published, so what is the problem?-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 18:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
How does one add proposed articles for deletion in the "Article Alerts" section on this project page?-- Mycomp ( talk) 10:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the addition of webzine Scene Point Blank as well. It is ten years old, published thousands of reviews, features, and news, and has an editorial staff. Ratings are given on a ten point scale (with decimals). Lorenspb ( talk) 21:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenspb ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Is HitFix a reliable source as a review website? It is not included in the list. Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 13:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Has anyone got any thoughts on the eligibility of Music Box album reviews, for inclusion in the reviewer ratings? A number of their reviews currently do appear in wikipedia album articles, but I've also noticed instances where others have been removed, the user citing self-published sources. From the few reviews I've read, Music Box pieces seem well written, balanced, and with a good perspective on how the release in question fits into the artist's work; and, in the case of reissues/remasters, how well they serve collectors decades later. They're certainly to the standard of PopMatters, Paste Magazine and others. Here's one I'd like to add: [12].
Quality's not the issue, I realise, and I can't claim to have done any great research on the site. But I've come across a music journalist who used to write for them, Douglas Heselgrave, and who now works for Paste Magazine. What interests me about him – in that it lifts Music Box's status imo – is the access he had to musicians of the calibre of Ravi Shankar and Zakir Hussein. While at Music Box, he interviewed both Shankar and Hussein – which is pretty impressive. It certainly appears as though the site has writers on staff, which is one of the criteria for inclusion. Any thoughts – perhaps this one has come up in the past? JG66 ( talk) 15:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:James singles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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.
This notice was originally posted at WikiProject Songs but there is an argument that "Singles" are more similar to "Albums" than to "Songs". So, this WikiProject is welcome to weigh in on possible changes to the taxonomy.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 17:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_28#Category:Classical_albums_by_date Since I created it, you know how I hope you'll !vote but either way, feedback is useful. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I have started a new discussion about collapsing track lists at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Collapsing_music_track_lists. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 00:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I have started a new discussion about moving or redirecting a mixtape album by the name of Acid Rap to Acid Rap (album) or Acid Rap (mixtape) over at Talk:Acid Rap#No_contrary_evidence. Ben0kto ( talk) 22:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Why are these accepted? As a current reviewer, I can tell you there is 0 editorial process or oversight. In reality, there is no separate process at all from a user review except for the fact that "staff" reviews are highlighted on the front page. I love my job there, but I love Wikipedia more and would rather we improve our great community here with real sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.173.165 ( talk) 02:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I wanted to let you know that most of the articles in this category are currently up for deletion – either as prod or as a full AfD. De728631 ( talk) 19:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for bringing this topic here, but can anyone help me find more reviews on Hidden Treasures (EP)? So far I only managed to find the Chicago Tribune. Thanks in advance.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 00:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that ten reviews is the upper limit for albums? Please could someone look at the new Arcade Fire album Reflektor, as the reception section is bloating up to 15 or 16 reviews. I'm not sure which ones to "cull". Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The Good Article project has a bit of a backlog in popular music; out of the five oldest nominations on the project right now, for example, all five are popular music-related. Unfortunately, this is an area where WP:GAN always gets more editors interested in nominating than in reviewing. Would anyone be willing to review an article or two to help reduce the wait? It doesn't take long, helps out other editors, and is a fun way to learn about some off-beat material. Cheers and thanks, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 19:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
HairyWombat points out this has been discussed three times previously, but there is yet another discussion about when to use the language parameter in Template:Infobox album, especially with regard to English language. Please feel free to comment at Template talk:Infobox album#Language parameter for English-only albums?
The discussion has progressed quickly and is now about whether the following recently added guidance wording is too strong:
See you there... Binksternet ( talk) 21:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I just started an article yesterday ( 63/19) about two mixtapes released on the same day as a double album. I didn't really know how to name the article, or if it should be one article or two. I made it one article because most people are treating it as a single entity. However, that's not true across the board, and it might make sense to split them into two separate articles. I'm especially running into problems with the {{album reviews}} template because I want to use it twice (all of the reviews that give numbered-style ratings that nicely fit into the template give separate ratings to each album), but I don't know how to specify which use would be for which album. Thoughts? -- Irn ( talk) 16:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I've nominated a few albums articles ( here and here) for de-listing them from GA. Decided to contact only this project because I believe it's more likely to get some response here than on WP:METAL. Anyway, if someone is interested in checking my notes and the quality of articles, can post an opinion on links pointed above. Thanks in advance.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 17:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion regarding the possibility of adding a parameter for release format(s) in the album infobox. Feel free to stop by and give some feedback. WikiRedactor ( talk) 16:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I constantly see this guy's reviews listed on various rock and alternative album pages. Indeed, a couple of editors seem to be quite active in adding them. I know it's been discussed in the past, but although the broad consensus seems to have been that he should not be used, there doesn't seem to have been any clear agreement to remove existing references or to stop people adding yet more. I really can't see the value in adding even the ratings from a self-published website. Yes, he had a brief write-up once in the New York Times, seven years ago, but he is not a noted or acknowledged reviewer or critic. N-HH talk/ edits 12:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Help talk:Template#Track Listing Tables. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I have asked a question at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Redirects_for_singles.2Fsongs_to_album_article which may be relevant to this page too. (the question is: "I see Category:John Lennon songs, Category:Bob Dylan songs contains many album songs, presumably so that Users can find them in A-Z using category. Is this practice encouraged/discouraged?" ) Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Radio3Net (also known as Radio Romania) have just changed their website. They were known for having a wide range of classic rock albums that could be streamed, including all the 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. Under WP:MUSICSTREAM a number of album articles are linked to Radio3Net. At the moment none of the links would work, and it's difficult to work out if the site intends to resume streaming albums. Under WP:LINKROT we are encouraged not to remove broken links when they are used as citations, but we can remove them when they purely used as External links, as these music links are. There are over 300 articles that link to Radio3Net, and most of those are likely to be linking to streamed albums that are currently not accessible.
My suggestion is that all links are commented out until it is known for certain what Radio3Net intend to do with their streamed albums. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: all streaming music can be downloaded without exception. You just sometimes have to be more tech savvy about it. If it successfully plays through your speakers then it's running through your sound card, which can be recorded off of (even if it's not set up to do normally do that there are ways). If it plays successfully it can be recorded. End of story. Probably not without quality loss mind you, though possibly without NOTICEABLE quality loss. 24.68.154.229 ( talk) 15:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone might want to fix the title of the "The Auteurs vs Muziq" page. It's Mu-ziq or μ-Ziq but never Muziq. I'd fix it myself but since it's the title of the page I can't figure out how, plus it would break any link to that page wouldn't it? My wiki fu is not strong enough. 24.68.154.229 ( talk) 14:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
-- 110.175.84.135 ( talk) 02:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
There is an error in the Personnel section for the SPY album by Carly Simon; but I won't edit it myself. The keyboard player should be listed as IAN MCLAGAN, not 'Ian McLaughlin'. I know this for a fact because I have McLagan's autobiography 'All the Rage', and on 390 it says McLagan played on Carly Siom's SPY album in 1979. People tend to misspell 'McLagan' or get his name confused with other musicians. Simply trying to be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.84.135 ( talk) 02:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. See my message above. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
110.175.84.135 (
talk) 02:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Sound soundtrack albums have "Music from the Motion Picture Soundtrack" as part of their name, or should they simply be "film name (album)"? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
If an album has a certain number of featured notable artists, does that make it a notable album? For example if a mix-tape by an artist features 5+ featured artists whom have their own Wikipedia pages, does that make that mix-tape notable and worthy of a page? - SilentDan297 talk 00:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The Description section for /info/en/?search=File:PeteSinfieldStill.jpg states: "This is the cover art for Still (Pete Sinfield album) by the artist Pete Sinfield. The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, Manticore, or the graphic artist(s), unknown."
The picture is "The Big Friend" by Sulamith Wülfing, which, apparently, Sinfield used to own but was destroyed by fire.
The use of Sulamith Wülfing's "The Big Friend" as cover art for Sinfield's album "Still" is already cited on Wikipedia: /info/en/?search=Sulamith_W%C3%BClfing#Influence_on_other_artists
"The Big Friend" is cited as being by Sulamith Wülfing and identified as Sinfield's cover art on these webpages: http://artpassions.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/dragons-big-dangerous-and-sometimes-misunderstood/ http://diagnosednostalgia.tumblr.com/post/3192616381/sulamith-wulfing-the-big-friend http://loverforbooks.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/sulamith-wulfing.html http://www.songsouponsea.com/Promenade/Still.html http://theafterword.co.uk/content/reply-album-cover-you-love
Please correct the Description entry by including this information!
1956Firebird ( talk) 16:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The Bee Gees are in the description of the album "this is where I came in" titled as an "English Rock Group". All Bee Gees are Australian Citizens, so that to my opion the right title is: "Australian Rock Group".
89.204.153.133 ( talk) 07:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Nyles Lannon currently uses 2 non-free images (covers of two albums), but I'm not sure that's justified by the article length/content. Opinions welcome at Talk:Nyles Lannon#Non-free images. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this website with reviews and music news about progressive rock reliable? I've seen its reviews used in articles like Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings (Bo Hansson album), but the site's contact and credits page shows " WordPress" as its publisher at the bottom. The site does have interviews and news stories, but the reviewers don't appear to be notable (from the credits page). Dan56 ( talk) 04:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion involving changing genre rules in the infobox here that relates to WP:ALBUMS. If any users could chime in on it it would be very helpful. :) Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
It looks like there is a long running dispute on whether or not he is a reliable source. It seems @ Soul Crusher: and anonymous IPs have a long standing habit of adding ( spamming?) his review scores onto review tables in reception sections.
There's a bunch of past discussions on this, and it seems like they vary from consensus against its use, to no consensus on what to do with it.
I'm tired of people wasting their time on this, so I'm looking for a final consensus on this. If there's consensus for it, then its allowed. If there is consensus against it, or no consensus either way, then it won't be useable.
Please include a clear Support or Oppose stance with a policy based reason. I will not weigh-in, I'm taking a neutral stance so I can make an uninvolved/unbiased judgment call for closing this. Please include your thoughts below: Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 23:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC).
Having had a few of my album articles uprated to B-class recently, I notice that unless the reviewer adds the parameters B1 to B6 and sets them all to yes, you end up with the confusing statements on the Album template on the talk page that "This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale" immediately followed by "This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status". Having looked at a sample of B-class album articles, it would appear that this is widespread. Is there any way of adjusting the template so that when an article has been rated B-class, the second of these statements is automatically removed, or failing that, are we allowed to set the B-class parameters to "yes" ourselves, so that it shows as having passed the assessment and removes the confusion? Thanks. Richard3120 ( talk) 05:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Consequence of Sound are now using letter grades to review albums. ???uest ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Is the website "Liverpool Sound and Vision" a reliable source? One editor wants to use this review in the article ...And Justice for All. However, I've seen the same source used in a number of other album articles, such as The Journey, Bula Quo!, The Minutes, etc.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 10:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Can someone take a look at the edits of TheDeviantPro ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user is removing the English-language field from album infoboxes without any reason as to why. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
lang=English
into our citations, because we're English language Wikipedia and it would seem unnecessary.
The Rambling Man (
talk) 09:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)I started expanding this article, got carried away (as I have a tendency to do) and it's not far off being in a position to nominate to good article status in my view. The main thing that stops it being ready are the two citation needed flags in the chart statistics section. I've got no real reason to believe they're wrong, and they need to be there for completeness, but I don't have an offline source and have no idea what online sources are good. Can anyone help? I will now trout myself for putting my copy of Guinness book of British Hit Albums in a charity shop about ten years ago, which would have cited all or most of the facts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:43, 6 February 2014 (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 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
I have compiled a list of sources that are of significantly high quality that are not mentioned at WP:ALBUMS/REVSIT, which here are the following publications in alphabetical order by type of publication to consider. Please, Feel free to add your own sources to this list if you know of anymore. HotHat ( talk) 03:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
These are the sources, Metacritic considers of great repute. So, we should consider them, too. HotHat ( talk) 16:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's their official list of aggregated review sources. Dan56 ( talk) 04:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This source was not even considered for the fact of "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc." So, it is a professional review site because it is a member of Spin Media, which is a highly reputable media conglomeration, and this means we have to move on to consider the other criteria. They have a "(paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)", so this means that it satisfies that requirement. Furthermore, they are "independent of the artist, record company", so this means they are trustworthy and noteworthy for their reviews. So, the previous debate had two editors that failed to consider it against this criteria. HotHat ( talk) 03:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't really think such a reorganization is needed. If a site is questionable for use in BLPs, a notice can be posted next to it, as is already the case for Blabbermouth.net. As for distinguishing between sources for reviews and for general content, I think that isn't practical. While there are articles that are reviews, and others that are more general, both can be used for critical reception and general content info. Reviews often contain info about other albums or info about the artist(s), and general content articles will often include some critical analysis, so the distinction becomes blurred. As to eliminating the distinction between print and online sources, I'm fine with that, though with print sources it is nice to have the links to back issues. Maybe list those links in the url section of the table?-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 14:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I opened a RM discussion to move the page Paradise (Lana Del Rey album) to Paradise (Lana Del Rey EP), because it is an EP. The problem is that an user, named Status, insists that because WP:NCM#Disambiguation_2 states that "[w]hen necessary, disambiguation should be done using "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)"", he believes that articles should be disambiguated by "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)" alone, in other words "(EP)" is incorrect. For months he has moved a few pages from EP to album under the argument "An "EP" is a type of album. We do not say "[Artist] studio album" for studio albums", and we don't because the term "album" generally means "studio album". According to what I can read in NCM, this clause only refers the way articles should be disambiguated as an example to avoid article titles like Echo by Leona Lewis or Echo - Leona Lewis for example, not that they must be disambiguated this way, especially if we consider Wikipedians have used "(EP)" dabs for years.
According to WP:MOSALBUM "the term (EP) should be used for EPs, (video) for video albums and (album) for other albums, e.g. Insomniac (album) and Gas Food Lodging (EP)", which only favors the reason why it should be moved (not to mention this). I came here because Status insists that I should be the person who requests WP:NCM to include "EP" terms to the "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)" the guide refers--as if it is my fault he found a loophole and just because he moved some pages it represents now community consensus--. Anyway, because he won't come here, is there any possibility to change the ambiguity in NCM to avoid another editor interprets guidelines as policies to "When disambiguation is necessary, it should be done using "(band)" or "(group)", "(EP)" for EPs, "(video)" for video albums, "(soundtrack)" for soundtrack albums, "(film score)" for film score albums, and (album) for other albums, or "(song)" for songs and singles", or something better written but less ambiguous? Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I have added Country Standard Time as a recommended source for reviews. The bottom of the site indicates an editor credit (Jeffrey B. Remz), and the site's archives stretch back to 1995, from when it was a print magazine. However, it doesn't seem complete — I saw a 1995 review quoted online, but couldn't find it in the archives. In this case, I would assume that the best bet would be to find the actual issue. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, I just recently registered to this site and would like to point out the authenticity of the article Eraserheads: The Final Set 03.07.09. It's been over four years since 2009, and I have yet to find an official live album release of this concert. So far, no official release of the concert (digital or physical copy) can be found on any of the country's record bars, nor on any online retailers. And only a bootleg copy (likely recorded from the stage soundboard) has been circulating among various file-sharing sites, and any official release that does exist are in the form of digital video downloads (full concert or clips per song) from the SMART Mobile Store. The only site that does recognize this as an official live album has been Wikipedia, but I don't see any listed sources. Please take into consideration of this request in further clarifying the article. Thank you and keep the knowledge flowing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faroush Freyjadour ( talk • contribs) 09:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Looking in Category:Suzi Quatro albums, redirects for alternate titles or spellings of albums are being categorized the same as the album to which they redirect to. This doesn't make sense. If an album was determined to lack the notability for a stand-alone artice but still a reasonable search time, a redirect to the artist or discography could be created and categorized in the manner of any album with an article, but why would one categorize redirects like If You Knew Suzi in this manner? That's like categorizing the same album twice and gives the impression that they are not the same album. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Japanese song and album titles in regards to Japanese song titles and WP:ALBUM is relevant to the discussion.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 17:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I see the Albums project tag on the talk page of the film, Inside Man. I don't understand why.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Soul Crusher ( talk · contribs) has been going around album articles adding reviews to this guy, seemingly not for the first time. They're all on Scaruffi's personal web site, but he does appear to be a known expert on the topic. I dug through old discussions here and here. He does seem notable enough to have his own article, and I'm reluctant to scream " Unreliable source!", because for all I know he might be Italy's answer to Charles Shaar Murray and Jann Wenner. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me or does this," I . . . . plan to introduce excerpts from his reviews into the articles. I put links to his site in the ratings box so readers can easily access them at their convenience and so editors can have the source immediately on hand if they wish to cite him.." ("cite him?") sound a lot like AGENDA to anyone else? Though I am not quite sure what the agenda is. Scaruffi is on the record for saying that the public should NOT trust wikipedia and that editors should insert untrue information to underscore this "fact." Now we have someone cramming Scaruffi into every possible crack and crevice. This means what? Carptrash ( talk) 16:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I can understand not listing his review if it consists of an terse assertion, like Technical Ecstacy being "terrible". Although I should mention that editors regularly cite lists which is viewed as acceptable. For example, in the "release and reception" on the Vol. 4 page it states: "Kerrang! magazine listed the album at No. 48 among the "100 Greatest Heavy Metal Albums of All Time." This simply provides the reader with knowledge of the album's ranking on a list and says nothing of the author's opinion of why the ranking is as such. This is also true of the Q magazine quote listed later in the paragraph. If we are looking for only lengthy and in-depth analysis's to be included in the article, and I'm not saying that Scaruffi or Christgau fail to meet this criteria, why are these lists and rankings readily accepted?-- Soul Crusher ( talk) 20:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
image:AllisonCroweNewfoundlandVinylalbumbackcover.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 04:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Please take part in the above discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#What is the Correct Way to Treat Remixes? 17:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I Think If Someone is trying to make changes to the mixtape's genre they should at least add Hardcore hip hop to it because as you notice on the lyrics Earl Sweatshirt uses hardcore lyrics throughout the whole mixtape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.150.244 ( talk) 02:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I bought this album when it first came out and still have it. Recorded it and converted it to MP3's the other day. In order to populate the details on the files I came here. When I did I found that the tracks are listed in the exact opposite order that they're on my album. Mama Can't Buy You Love followed by Three Way Love Affair on side one. Are you Ready For Love alone on side 2. Daleshouse ( talk) 00:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be an error or misunderstainding regarding the certification status of the album "One World" and the hit single contained therein, "I Just Want To Celebrate," by Rare Earth. "One World" has not earned the Gold Record certification by RIAA as of today (August 31, 2013). The third and last Gold Record by Rare Earth is "Rare Earth In Concert," the following album to "One World."
Regarding the hit single off the album, "I Just Want To Celebrate," it did went as high as # 7 at Hot 100 of Billboard Magazine, but it has not earned Gold Record certification by RIAA as of today either.
Masato Ata a/k/a Boonzzy Tokyo, Japan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.26.120.123 ( talk) 02:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, can I use this. Thanks in advance. -- Niwi3 ( talk) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Can we just leave a note "staff reviews only"? And by the way, I haven't noticed that common users were doing album reviews on that site.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 14:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Getting back to the original question, yes this can be used as a source. However, there is clearly no consensus to add about.com to the list of reliable sources, thus the list can remain as is in that regard. ChakaKong Let's talk about it 16:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
From what I've gather in the past, it's okay to use About.com if you're only going to have an article GA. But as far as featured article material, the relibilty becomes questionable. Erick ( talk) 19:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Not all "staff" articles are reliable (I didn't even know users could submit articles). For example, Mark Edward Nero has written for various reliable newspapers, and is an established music journalist. However, Bill Lamb's bio says he is a "music journalist specializing in pop music. He has been covering the world of pop music on the Internet since 1999." He has no experience writing for newspapers or music magazines, and neither does he have an academic qualification in pop music. I often see his work used as sources for music articles, but they get slammed when taken to FAC. Check out the writer's expertise in their writing field, before seeing "About.com Guide" and thinking 'oh, OK good, that's reliable". Adabow ( talk) 20:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Can the community make comment whether this can be included in an article. Thanks.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 14:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The source is not self-published, so what is the problem?-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 18:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
How does one add proposed articles for deletion in the "Article Alerts" section on this project page?-- Mycomp ( talk) 10:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the addition of webzine Scene Point Blank as well. It is ten years old, published thousands of reviews, features, and news, and has an editorial staff. Ratings are given on a ten point scale (with decimals). Lorenspb ( talk) 21:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenspb ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Is HitFix a reliable source as a review website? It is not included in the list. Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 13:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Has anyone got any thoughts on the eligibility of Music Box album reviews, for inclusion in the reviewer ratings? A number of their reviews currently do appear in wikipedia album articles, but I've also noticed instances where others have been removed, the user citing self-published sources. From the few reviews I've read, Music Box pieces seem well written, balanced, and with a good perspective on how the release in question fits into the artist's work; and, in the case of reissues/remasters, how well they serve collectors decades later. They're certainly to the standard of PopMatters, Paste Magazine and others. Here's one I'd like to add: [12].
Quality's not the issue, I realise, and I can't claim to have done any great research on the site. But I've come across a music journalist who used to write for them, Douglas Heselgrave, and who now works for Paste Magazine. What interests me about him – in that it lifts Music Box's status imo – is the access he had to musicians of the calibre of Ravi Shankar and Zakir Hussein. While at Music Box, he interviewed both Shankar and Hussein – which is pretty impressive. It certainly appears as though the site has writers on staff, which is one of the criteria for inclusion. Any thoughts – perhaps this one has come up in the past? JG66 ( talk) 15:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:James singles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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.
This notice was originally posted at WikiProject Songs but there is an argument that "Singles" are more similar to "Albums" than to "Songs". So, this WikiProject is welcome to weigh in on possible changes to the taxonomy.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 17:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_28#Category:Classical_albums_by_date Since I created it, you know how I hope you'll !vote but either way, feedback is useful. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I have started a new discussion about collapsing track lists at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Collapsing_music_track_lists. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 00:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I have started a new discussion about moving or redirecting a mixtape album by the name of Acid Rap to Acid Rap (album) or Acid Rap (mixtape) over at Talk:Acid Rap#No_contrary_evidence. Ben0kto ( talk) 22:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Why are these accepted? As a current reviewer, I can tell you there is 0 editorial process or oversight. In reality, there is no separate process at all from a user review except for the fact that "staff" reviews are highlighted on the front page. I love my job there, but I love Wikipedia more and would rather we improve our great community here with real sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.173.165 ( talk) 02:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I wanted to let you know that most of the articles in this category are currently up for deletion – either as prod or as a full AfD. De728631 ( talk) 19:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for bringing this topic here, but can anyone help me find more reviews on Hidden Treasures (EP)? So far I only managed to find the Chicago Tribune. Thanks in advance.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 00:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that ten reviews is the upper limit for albums? Please could someone look at the new Arcade Fire album Reflektor, as the reception section is bloating up to 15 or 16 reviews. I'm not sure which ones to "cull". Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The Good Article project has a bit of a backlog in popular music; out of the five oldest nominations on the project right now, for example, all five are popular music-related. Unfortunately, this is an area where WP:GAN always gets more editors interested in nominating than in reviewing. Would anyone be willing to review an article or two to help reduce the wait? It doesn't take long, helps out other editors, and is a fun way to learn about some off-beat material. Cheers and thanks, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 19:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
HairyWombat points out this has been discussed three times previously, but there is yet another discussion about when to use the language parameter in Template:Infobox album, especially with regard to English language. Please feel free to comment at Template talk:Infobox album#Language parameter for English-only albums?
The discussion has progressed quickly and is now about whether the following recently added guidance wording is too strong:
See you there... Binksternet ( talk) 21:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I just started an article yesterday ( 63/19) about two mixtapes released on the same day as a double album. I didn't really know how to name the article, or if it should be one article or two. I made it one article because most people are treating it as a single entity. However, that's not true across the board, and it might make sense to split them into two separate articles. I'm especially running into problems with the {{album reviews}} template because I want to use it twice (all of the reviews that give numbered-style ratings that nicely fit into the template give separate ratings to each album), but I don't know how to specify which use would be for which album. Thoughts? -- Irn ( talk) 16:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I've nominated a few albums articles ( here and here) for de-listing them from GA. Decided to contact only this project because I believe it's more likely to get some response here than on WP:METAL. Anyway, if someone is interested in checking my notes and the quality of articles, can post an opinion on links pointed above. Thanks in advance.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 17:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion regarding the possibility of adding a parameter for release format(s) in the album infobox. Feel free to stop by and give some feedback. WikiRedactor ( talk) 16:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I constantly see this guy's reviews listed on various rock and alternative album pages. Indeed, a couple of editors seem to be quite active in adding them. I know it's been discussed in the past, but although the broad consensus seems to have been that he should not be used, there doesn't seem to have been any clear agreement to remove existing references or to stop people adding yet more. I really can't see the value in adding even the ratings from a self-published website. Yes, he had a brief write-up once in the New York Times, seven years ago, but he is not a noted or acknowledged reviewer or critic. N-HH talk/ edits 12:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Help talk:Template#Track Listing Tables. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I have asked a question at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Redirects_for_singles.2Fsongs_to_album_article which may be relevant to this page too. (the question is: "I see Category:John Lennon songs, Category:Bob Dylan songs contains many album songs, presumably so that Users can find them in A-Z using category. Is this practice encouraged/discouraged?" ) Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Radio3Net (also known as Radio Romania) have just changed their website. They were known for having a wide range of classic rock albums that could be streamed, including all the 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. Under WP:MUSICSTREAM a number of album articles are linked to Radio3Net. At the moment none of the links would work, and it's difficult to work out if the site intends to resume streaming albums. Under WP:LINKROT we are encouraged not to remove broken links when they are used as citations, but we can remove them when they purely used as External links, as these music links are. There are over 300 articles that link to Radio3Net, and most of those are likely to be linking to streamed albums that are currently not accessible.
My suggestion is that all links are commented out until it is known for certain what Radio3Net intend to do with their streamed albums. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: all streaming music can be downloaded without exception. You just sometimes have to be more tech savvy about it. If it successfully plays through your speakers then it's running through your sound card, which can be recorded off of (even if it's not set up to do normally do that there are ways). If it plays successfully it can be recorded. End of story. Probably not without quality loss mind you, though possibly without NOTICEABLE quality loss. 24.68.154.229 ( talk) 15:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone might want to fix the title of the "The Auteurs vs Muziq" page. It's Mu-ziq or μ-Ziq but never Muziq. I'd fix it myself but since it's the title of the page I can't figure out how, plus it would break any link to that page wouldn't it? My wiki fu is not strong enough. 24.68.154.229 ( talk) 14:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
-- 110.175.84.135 ( talk) 02:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
There is an error in the Personnel section for the SPY album by Carly Simon; but I won't edit it myself. The keyboard player should be listed as IAN MCLAGAN, not 'Ian McLaughlin'. I know this for a fact because I have McLagan's autobiography 'All the Rage', and on 390 it says McLagan played on Carly Siom's SPY album in 1979. People tend to misspell 'McLagan' or get his name confused with other musicians. Simply trying to be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.84.135 ( talk) 02:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. See my message above. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
110.175.84.135 (
talk) 02:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Sound soundtrack albums have "Music from the Motion Picture Soundtrack" as part of their name, or should they simply be "film name (album)"? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
If an album has a certain number of featured notable artists, does that make it a notable album? For example if a mix-tape by an artist features 5+ featured artists whom have their own Wikipedia pages, does that make that mix-tape notable and worthy of a page? - SilentDan297 talk 00:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The Description section for /info/en/?search=File:PeteSinfieldStill.jpg states: "This is the cover art for Still (Pete Sinfield album) by the artist Pete Sinfield. The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, Manticore, or the graphic artist(s), unknown."
The picture is "The Big Friend" by Sulamith Wülfing, which, apparently, Sinfield used to own but was destroyed by fire.
The use of Sulamith Wülfing's "The Big Friend" as cover art for Sinfield's album "Still" is already cited on Wikipedia: /info/en/?search=Sulamith_W%C3%BClfing#Influence_on_other_artists
"The Big Friend" is cited as being by Sulamith Wülfing and identified as Sinfield's cover art on these webpages: http://artpassions.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/dragons-big-dangerous-and-sometimes-misunderstood/ http://diagnosednostalgia.tumblr.com/post/3192616381/sulamith-wulfing-the-big-friend http://loverforbooks.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/sulamith-wulfing.html http://www.songsouponsea.com/Promenade/Still.html http://theafterword.co.uk/content/reply-album-cover-you-love
Please correct the Description entry by including this information!
1956Firebird ( talk) 16:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The Bee Gees are in the description of the album "this is where I came in" titled as an "English Rock Group". All Bee Gees are Australian Citizens, so that to my opion the right title is: "Australian Rock Group".
89.204.153.133 ( talk) 07:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Nyles Lannon currently uses 2 non-free images (covers of two albums), but I'm not sure that's justified by the article length/content. Opinions welcome at Talk:Nyles Lannon#Non-free images. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this website with reviews and music news about progressive rock reliable? I've seen its reviews used in articles like Music Inspired by Lord of the Rings (Bo Hansson album), but the site's contact and credits page shows " WordPress" as its publisher at the bottom. The site does have interviews and news stories, but the reviewers don't appear to be notable (from the credits page). Dan56 ( talk) 04:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion involving changing genre rules in the infobox here that relates to WP:ALBUMS. If any users could chime in on it it would be very helpful. :) Andrzejbanas ( talk) 19:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
It looks like there is a long running dispute on whether or not he is a reliable source. It seems @ Soul Crusher: and anonymous IPs have a long standing habit of adding ( spamming?) his review scores onto review tables in reception sections.
There's a bunch of past discussions on this, and it seems like they vary from consensus against its use, to no consensus on what to do with it.
I'm tired of people wasting their time on this, so I'm looking for a final consensus on this. If there's consensus for it, then its allowed. If there is consensus against it, or no consensus either way, then it won't be useable.
Please include a clear Support or Oppose stance with a policy based reason. I will not weigh-in, I'm taking a neutral stance so I can make an uninvolved/unbiased judgment call for closing this. Please include your thoughts below: Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 23:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC).
Having had a few of my album articles uprated to B-class recently, I notice that unless the reviewer adds the parameters B1 to B6 and sets them all to yes, you end up with the confusing statements on the Album template on the talk page that "This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale" immediately followed by "This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status". Having looked at a sample of B-class album articles, it would appear that this is widespread. Is there any way of adjusting the template so that when an article has been rated B-class, the second of these statements is automatically removed, or failing that, are we allowed to set the B-class parameters to "yes" ourselves, so that it shows as having passed the assessment and removes the confusion? Thanks. Richard3120 ( talk) 05:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Consequence of Sound are now using letter grades to review albums. ???uest ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Is the website "Liverpool Sound and Vision" a reliable source? One editor wants to use this review in the article ...And Justice for All. However, I've seen the same source used in a number of other album articles, such as The Journey, Bula Quo!, The Minutes, etc.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 10:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Can someone take a look at the edits of TheDeviantPro ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user is removing the English-language field from album infoboxes without any reason as to why. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
lang=English
into our citations, because we're English language Wikipedia and it would seem unnecessary.
The Rambling Man (
talk) 09:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)I started expanding this article, got carried away (as I have a tendency to do) and it's not far off being in a position to nominate to good article status in my view. The main thing that stops it being ready are the two citation needed flags in the chart statistics section. I've got no real reason to believe they're wrong, and they need to be there for completeness, but I don't have an offline source and have no idea what online sources are good. Can anyone help? I will now trout myself for putting my copy of Guinness book of British Hit Albums in a charity shop about ten years ago, which would have cited all or most of the facts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)