![]() | 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
I'd like to write an article on a 1990s bootleg release titled Beware of ABKCO!, which consists of George Harrison running through some songs under consideration for his 1970 triple album All Things Must Pass. He's at Abbey Road, playing them for co-producer Phil Spector the day before the full sessions begin. The bootleg gets a fair amount of attention from Harrison biographers and Beatles authors (in the latter category, I'm thinking of Madinger & Easter's Eight Arms to Hold You and Bruce Spizer's The Beatles Solo on Apple Records), and it merits an article on AllMusic by Richie Unterberger.
What attracts me to having a wikipedia article about the bootleg is that six of the compositions (let alone these particular recordings) have never turned up on any official Harrison release; on wikipedia, those song titles currently redirect to All Things Must Pass, but an article dedicated to the run-through tape will reduce the amount of text needed under the album article's " Demo tracks and outtakes" subsection. On this point, even though we have dedicated song articles for all of the original album's disc 1 and 2 songs ("bonus" disc 3 being the mostly instrumental Apple Jam), there are currently 16 song/track redirects to the album article.
All I can think of in the way of precedents is A Toot and a Snore in '74, which captures a Los Angeles jam session by Lennon, McCartney and others. While this 1974 event undoubtedly has greater historical significance than Harrison's solo performance, I'd argue that of the two unofficial musical documents, Beware of ABKCO! is considerably better known than Toot. Has anyone got any thoughts on this – is it acceptable to have an article on the Harrison bootleg? Are there more precedents perhaps?
As an alternative, I've been considering an article titled something like: Outtakes and unreleased songs from George Harrison's ''All Things Must Pass''. That would cover Beware of ABKCO!, perhaps include more detail on Apple Jam also, and allow for further cuts to ATMP/Demo tracks & outtakes – because discussion of songs such as "Dehradun" and "Gopala Krishna" would have a new home, leaving just a brief mention of those songs in the album article. Again, any thoughts, examples of comparable situations, etc, would be welcome. Thanks, JG66 ( talk) 05:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
ee the discussion here. RockMagnetist ( talk) 05:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
See discussion here. Johnny338 ( talk) 20:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
album rating by answers.com is unreliable sources? and can it be use in Good and Featured aticles? it using allmusic database for review, but it's rating is diffrent. see lz2for example Sandman q23 ( talk) 05:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Would http://www.laut.de be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? I tried citing it in an article, but the source was challenged by another editor. I know it's a non-English source, but they are allowed to be cited to a certain extent. Kokoro20 ( talk) 19:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
11:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Released in 1994 by Backdoor records of the Philippines. A recording of the different indigenous instruments from the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.58.197 ( talk) 08:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
an album that features the songs of Ato Mariano a musician composer from Mindanao. Released in 1995 in Manila.-- 121.54.58.197 ( talk) 08:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
There is edit warring and genre conversation going on at Garbage (album) talk page. Any further input would be greatly appreciated. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 00:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Used prominently on music good articles, Idolator is a music "blog" (more in the style of a news blog) which features reviews of songs and albums, coverage on music releases and pop artists' other ventures; gossip and tabloid-y content has been posted in the past but there's almost no trace of it now. For some reason, it is almost always removed from WP:FAs though no signs of non-reliability have been given.
I also opened a discussion about the source in WP:RSN which has been archived and users who commented on it agreed that it was reliable. ([ here]) This discussion is to hopefully add it to WP:ALBUM/SOURCES and thus determine its reliability (or not). — prism △ 11:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Already Heard is a website that reports on band activity, to me personally It looks pretty decent, it has a load of staff including writers and photographers and has a lot of coverage, for example I am currently writing a draft for an upcoming
Mallory Knox album and one of the points is referenced by one of the bands Facebook posts which I want to replace, I want to use this article as the reference:
[1]
I personally believe this looks pretty good however as usual I like to check with others in case it is in fact regarded unreliable. Please share your opinions, thank you.
SilentDan297
talk
22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Should this even be listed as a source to avoid? Even though the site has non-professional reviewers, it does also have professional reviewers (like Tim Grierson, who is from Blender and Revolver, and Chad Bowar, who is from Loudwire), just like Sputnikmusic. If it is to stay in the sources to avoid list, it should also be in the recommended sources list for clarification, just like Sputnikmusic. Also, the link in mentioned in the list is to a thread where someone clearly says that opinions on the site's reliability has been mixed, judging on past discussions, so there hasn't even been a consensus that it's never reliable. I've seen people removing About.com from articles lately, saying it's not reliable and stuff (regardless of the author), so I thought of bringing this to discussion. Kokoro20 ( talk) 13:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I have made this test table. Feel free to improve it. Funny that when I browsed through the reviews I was unable to find reviews by Shawhan etc. Kindly add any reviewer I missed -- WonderBoy1998 ( talk) 16:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Critic | Genre | Reliable? | Reasoning |
---|---|---|---|
Steve Peake | 80s music | No | Unable to find any information regarding any other professional work. |
Melissa Bobbitt | 90s rock | Yes | Has written for Alternative Press and PopMatters ( here) |
Anthony Carew | Alternative music | Yes | Wrote for Rolling Stone, The Age ( here), and The Sydney Morning Herald ( here) |
Reverend Keith A. Gordon | Blues | Yes | Has written for AllMusic ( here) and has also written a book The Other Side of Nashville |
Warren Truitt | Children's music | No | Unable to find any information regarding any other professional work. |
Kim Jones | Christian music/gospel | Yes | Writes for Music Times ( here) |
Dave White | Classic rock | No | Unable to find any information regarding any other professional work. |
Aaron M. Green | Classical | No | Has completed the "NEA Arts Journalism Institute in Classical Music and Opera at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism" according to About.com bio. However, no reviews by this critic for a publication other than About.com have been found. |
Robert Silva | Country | Yes | Has written for AMC.com ( here) and All Media Guide according to résumé ( here) |
Ben Norman | Dance/Electronic | No | Unable to find any information regarding any other professional work. |
Jason Shawhan | Dance/Electronic | No | Member of the Southeastern Film Critics Association and has contributed to The Observer ( here), but no experience in music criticism |
Kim Ruehl | Folk | Yes | Writer for No Depression ( here). Has worked for Billboard ( here) and Yes! ( here). |
Chad Bowar | Heavy metal | Yes | Wrote for Loudwire. ( here) |
Michael Verity | Jazz | Yes | Has written reviews for Relix ( here) and American Songwriter, albeit for genres other than jazz. ( here) |
Carlos Quintana | Latin | No | Was "actively involved in the elaboration of the Latin music database for the Yahoo! Music site" according to About.com bio. An article he has written for About.com has been used by the site of the Institute of Latin America Studies at Anhui University ( here). However, no reviews by this critic for a publication other than About.com have been found. |
Robert Fontenot | Oldies | Yes | Contributes to OffBeat ( here). Has also worked for AOL and USA Today, according to About.com bio. |
Ryan Cooper | Punk | No | About.com bio claims his work has appeared in Alternative Press. Unable to confirm this through any other source. |
Ken Simmons | R&B/Soul | No | Has experience in R&B radio but not in critiquing |
Henry Adaso | Hip-hop/Rap | Yes | Written for Vibe, LA Weekly and XXL, Houston Press ( here), cited by MTV. Also founded and is currently editor-in-chief of The Rap Up. |
Tim Grierson | Rock | Yes | Wrote for Blender ( here and Rolling Stone ( here). |
Chris Caggiano | Theatre | Yes | Teaches courses in musical-theater history, arts criticism and the neuroscience of music at the Boston Conservatory, where he is a full-time faculty member. ( yes) |
Bill Lamb | Pop | No | Only other experience is as DJ for a college radio station |
Megan Romer | World | Yes | Written for No Depression ( here). Marketing director of Finger Lakes GrassRoots Festival of Music and Dance ( here) |
Mark Edward Nero | R&B | Yes | Wrote a weekly column for The San Diego Union-Tribune ( here). Work has also appeared in the Los Angeles Daily News, The Boston Globe and Pasadena Star-News, according to About.com bio |
Okay. I have changed the "Maybe(s)" to "No(s)." Also, if anyone finds a music editor missing from this table, kindly add them with a suitably sourced judgement regarding their reliability. -- WonderBoy1998 ( talk) 08:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Wanted to propose adding Loudwire to the list of sources. Loudwire is a website which daily updates news on rock and heavy metal and I find it very useful for information on lesser known bands. It has professional editorial staff, and it looks like a high-standard source. It features numerous interviews and album reviews, and I considered it essential for albums of this genre. On the other hand, Metal Storm and Punknews are largely user-edited websites, and there are few posts that you'll find appropriate for album articles. I think their inclusion on the list can be misleading to editors less involved in album articles to a certain degree.-- Retrohead ( talk) 11:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems standard now for editors to add bonus tracks as a hidden box on album articles, for example Exodus. I find it anoying and ugly, why hide the Sessions with Lee Perry, July / August 1977 tracks? It does also seem to contavene Scrolling lists and collapsible content: "Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, image galleries, and image captions." — 86.171.14.51 ( talk) 11:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject, I'm hoping to get some comments at Talk:List of double albums#"Can fit on one CD". A New Jersey-based IP with a history of disruptive edits, and a user account with a history of disruptive edits, ( they are likely the same actor,) have been adding "Can fit on one CD" to this list of double albums. Frankly, I don't see the value of this, as it appears to be crufty, and is comprised entirely of original research, ( "I did the math & CD'S Hold up to 79:57 of music. So back off.") and I was hoping to get some input from the community. I don't take their positions seriously since they have been disruptive, and I doubt they'll put together a coherent rebuttal, but I'm hoping to establish consensus one way or another, even if my instinct is wrong about the usefulness of the content. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Could we add Dummy to a list of sources? Their about us section seems legit to me. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 15:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I was just taking a look at So Tonight That I Might See (I can't believe this is a stub) when I noticed that the link to the Rolling Stones rating was broken. [2] Of course, I popped that sucker into archive.org and got the old link. [3] However, should the archive link be used in the ratings, or is there a way to find it on the current site? I could be wrong, but has RS paywalled all their old archival articles? Any help is appreciated, as this could have an impact on many album articles. Viriditas ( talk) 03:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Musichel is an entertainment weblog that specialises in pop culture. First incepted in October 2012, it has since flourished into a global pop culture website. It has featured several high-profile celebrities on its blog such as Jake T. Austin, R5, John Barrowman and Olivia Holt and has several reviews of music and films. I personally know a lot of teen-boppers who frequent this site for reviews and articles on young stars. While I do know the founder of this website, I feel that it is reliable, unbiased, accurate and should be considered for this list.
I don't know how to do it but can someone who knows what they're doing add the song Mambo Italiano by Rosemary Clooney to the soundtrack of the movie Married to the Mob? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxaxon2211 ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@ SNUGGUMS, WikiRedactor, Retrohead, WonderBoy1998, and Adabow: Are predominantly LGBT-targeted sources reliable for album/music reviews and other content? (e.g.: Philadelphia Gay News, Frontiers, Instinct, Next Magazine) Are those reputable enough to be included on an FA? pedro | talk 20:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If anyone on Wiki has the following issues:
Could you check their "album reviews" sections for a review of Natalia Kills' album Trouble? I can't find those issues anywhere online. It would be a huge favor. Thank you in advance pedro | talk 19:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
At Template talk:Infobox musical artist two editors have imposed what they believe to be a change to use flatlists rather than comma separated values to separate items. A full discussion should be had before changing. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The correct format for this album title really should be sorted out once and for all – it was suggested on the talk page as far back as 2011 that it should be formatted as Nothing But the Beat, which seems correct to me, and for the reasons suggested by the editor. Either way, it needs to be standardised: the article title uses "but" in lower case letters, while the article text uses upper case for both "But" and "The" (definitely wrong). i just wanted to run it by other editors to check I have interpreted the MOS correctly in this case, then I'll put it forward for a move request. Richard3120 ( talk) 22:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I just added a link to Billboard's own archive of scanned (and searchable) print back issues on the WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources page. The url is http://www.billboard.com/magazine-archive There are many missing issues, but I thought you guys might like to know :) Dcs002 ( talk) 08:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Was just tidying up the reviewer ratings in Lennon's Imagine, removing a non-staff Sputnik review, but the reviews by Adrian Denning and Common Sense Media remain there. Denning seems active currently and busy, and his opinions appear in several articles on Wikipedia. I imagine he may well have been discussed here in the past, maybe not … What do we think, is Denning an acceptable, reliable source? And Common Sense Media: is a "quality" rating (separate from their parental-guide score) acceptable in a table of reviewer ratings? Thanks, JG66 ( talk) 14:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, there is discussion whether we should include an article from Clash magazine as a review on the GA nominated article The Complete Studio Albums (1983 – 2008). I'm aware that Clash is an accepted review source, but not sure if the actual article is a review or not. Any thoughts on the topic would be welcome [Talk:The Complete Studio Albums (1983 – 2008) here]. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 13:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a current discussion on whether or not the certifications should be used on the Template:Certification Table Entry. Erick ( talk) 22:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
On the talk page for
The Wall I brought up an issue about the unique way the first edition LPs were packaged, with a large paper insert under the plastic wrap showing the Gerald Scarfe logo. (See
Talk:The Wall.) I made mention of it in the Packaging section of the article, and it was deleted by another editor. No one has commented at all on the talk page. Originally the section said "The logo and band name are presented on a sticker," and I added "originally a paper insert inside the LP's plastic wrapping." The other editor has removed any mention now of any of that, with the comment (revert - it isn't necessary to describe every tiny detail), as well as other clarifying information that was requested in a "clarification needed" tag (as well as the tag itself), and the section now says more about Hipgnosis & Storm Thorgerson (controversy about why he wasn't involved with this album) and other Floyd covers than it does about packaging for The Wall. The other editor refuses to discuss the matter anywhere but his own user talk page, and he has suggested that won't last either. I reverted his deletions once twice (two each now) and asked him on his user talk page to discuss things, but he undid the reversion without any discussion on the talk page. I have the impression he wants things his way and is unwilling to share the process of editing this article. I'd appreciate comments on the talk page, and maybe a little advice, or support if you agree that the insert (or anything else) should be mentioned in that very small section. Thanks!
Dcs002 (
talk)
11:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Somebody should do this, if the request was ok. -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 06:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I’m going to have this discussion closed soon, but I felt it would be a wiser option to advertise it more widely in the meantime. It’s been going on for several months now but I imagine I didn’t broadcast its existence as I needed to; any more input is greatly appreciated. If you have anything to add, please put it there, not here. Thank you. Lazy Bastard Guy 03:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know who the self appointed editor is to that page. But you or whoever it is that is posting - needs to stop posting claims that simply do not hold up when checked against the facts.
To suggest that 'Man on a Rock' is Oldfield's only second album where 'long' instrumental tracks are NOT included; is at best dubious (how do you define what is long or over long ?) and at worst completely false.
A quick check of Oldfield's discography shows that his 'Crisis' album of 1983 fits the criteria perfectly. There are no 'long' instrumentals in that album. Even QE2 from the year before fits the same claim : if you accept that one of the instrumentals is relatively short (when compared to Tubular bells) etc.
After Crisis was released : Oldfield produced numerous albums that were vocal orientated : aka songs.
So : please correct the claim or get rid of it : since it is effectively meaningless.
TubularWorld ( talk) 16:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The Crisis main track was 20 minutes long and was interspersed with vocals by Oldfiled,
The extra length track you are referring to as 'Taurus 111' is a much later version issued by Mercury in 2013 : That had a length of 20 minutes.
However, I rule the 'Crisis' track out because it contains Oldfield lyrics.
Hope this helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.157.109 ( talk) 05:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
TubularWorld ( talk) 06:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I could not find a discussion on this matter, so I am wondering what the consensus is on compilation templates such as {{ Relics tracks}}, {{ An Introduction to Syd Barrett tracks}}, {{ Endless Summer tracks}}, and {{ The Best of George Harrison tracks}}. Invariably, their use is restricted for songs and singles which did not see their original release. The closest guidance I could find pertaining to this issue is on Template:Infobox Album#Template:Singles which states:
- Do not include singles that were added as bonus tracks on a re-release of an album.
- For songs that appear on more than one album, list the song as a single only for the album(s) where the single was released as part of the marketing and promotion of that album. Examples:
- If a song is originally released as a single during the marketing and promotion of an album on which it also appears, and is subsequently included on a compilation album, list the song as a single only for the original album and not for the compilation album.
- If a song is originally released as an album track only, but is subsequently released as a single to promote the release of a compilation album, include the song as a single only for the compilation album.
None of this explicitly advises against extra track templates in song or single infoboxes. It would be nice to get some second opinions over adding track templates to them. I personally think extra track templates are perceived as the canonical equivalence to "alternate covers" meaning that they do not inherently suggest that a song/single is from, say, a compilation. I think the addition of such templates should be OK if there is rhyme or reason behind its use. What I would consider reasonable use of the template would be adding {{ Magical Mystery Tour tracks}} to the " Strawberry Fields Forever" and " Penny Lane" infoboxes. While the 1967 Magical Mystery Tour LP released by Capitol was not the original release of the single, I feel that its exclusion denies readers the harmless luxury of easy navigation through album tracks. See this edit-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 19:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear album experts: Although I am a musician, I haven't done much work with charts. Is this an appropriate article topic, and is using the charting organization as a reference okay? — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Kimbra's second studio album "The Golden Echo" came out today and the Wikipedia page for it is very incomplete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.58.236 ( talk • contribs) 24 August 2014 04:15 (UTC)
I've done a lot of work on The Byrds-related articles, but something that's always bugged me is that the band's ninth album is called (Untitled), with the parentheses being a part of the title, but the album's article is located at Untitled (The Byrds album). Should I move it to (Untitled) (The Byrds album) or is there a reason why we don't start album articles with parentheses? -- Kohoutek1138 ( talk) 23:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there!
I'm currently involved in a discussion about the song titles on a soundtrack album.
I have provided a link to discogs.com which provides a typed track list and also links to photos of the physical album and its packaging. It does this for 42 different versions/pressings of this album.
Another editor rejects this a being a "primary source" and refers to two books as secondary sources that associates different titles to the songs in question.
(The example in question is the three-song suite towards the end of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. In dispute is the name of the suite and its first song.)
My question to the project are:
1. Is the track information taken from the physical album a valid enough source for a track list? I would think so since, even if it is a primary source, per Wikipedia:No original research, primary sources are suitable for a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." There is no interpretation, analysis or synthesis going on, hence no secondary source is needed IMHO.
2. How to proceed if there are secondary sources that disagree with the information taken from the CDs/LPs etc.?
I'd be grateful if someone could comment on Talk:The Rocky Horror Picture Show, where the discussion takes place. Str1977 (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Str1977 (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
" MuuMuse is a US-based pop music blog that is published daily", it was reliable? 183.171.167.253 ( talk) 14:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#RfC: Should participants in the personnel section be ordered alphabetically?, about how to order personnel sections of album articles. Interested editors are encouraged to join in the discussion there (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). — Mudwater ( Talk) 14:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I created an article for Raffi's newest album, Love Bug, but someone marked it as violating copyright, despite having a list of songs that parallels the lists in other Raffi albums. Any comments anyone has?? I would like to see if anyone can compare Love Bug (Raffi) with Singable Songs for the Very Young and see if the former article can be altered to parallel the latter in article in any way. Georgia guy ( talk) 00:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Days Go By has a parental advisory label that is a removable sticker on the American CD release. Does anyone know if the American CD releases of Splinter (their first with the PA label), or Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace have the removable sticker like Days Go By, or have it printed on the cover art, unlike Days Go By? 173.51.123.97 ( talk) 20:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
After a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation, we want to try and get more subject knowledge onto reviews of draft submissions, which is sadly lacking. As a semi-regular of this reasonably active project, I've picked it for a guinea pig and tagged a bunch of album articles (these are easy to spot as they have "album" in the title!) and put them in Category:Draft-Class Album articles. There's a current problem in that category lists all drafts, not just those awaiting review, but hopefully I can find a solution for that soon.
If you have an account over 90 days old, over 500 edits, and understand basic policy, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation#How to get involved and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Should we use reviews from AXS that's a ticket merchant for album reviews in critical reception sections on articles such as My Everything and Worlds.03:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdditionSubtraction ( talk • contribs)
RustynRose recently added a review from http://metalholic.com with this edit. Looking through the website, it appears to be a few fans writing their own reviews. A Google search didn't turn up much in the way of establishing reliability (specifically the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" requirement). I'm also concerned as this editor's name is the same as the editor-in-chief for the website (according to http://metalholic.com/about/), so it's likely these are the same person (and I have left a COI message on that editor's talk page), and that COI concerns me. But, does anyone else think this passes WP:RS? I think that whatever the outcome of this discussion, that outcome should be added to WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 18:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Parachutes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see talk:Parachutes -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 06:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Why isn't music publisher a category ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.21.154 ( talk) 15:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Is this allowed? I'm not looking to create cruft or put forth any kind of POV agenda, but rather add different takes on an album beyond just the usual go-to AllMusic review. In this case, I'm referring to two separate All About Jazz reviews ( 1, 2) for the Allan Holdsworth album None Too Soon. Both are in-depth and discuss slightly different things, which provides useful material for a critical reception section that I'm in the process of writing up. So, can I use them both? Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 19:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, ok I just created an account - read some of the guidelines and now try to add some. Don't be too harsh if I'm wrong.
I'm just putting together a collection of music for my son and so far WP is agreat source for information. To do something constructive i now try to bring something into discussion.
The search for the Slickaphonics ended up on the "In Concert (Miles Davis album)" page
Actually the Slickaphonics are also a band around trombone player Ray Anderson
discography of the S. Slickaphonics: Modern Life (Enja, 1982) Slickaphonics: Wow Bag (Enja, 1983) Slickaphonics: Humatonic Energy (Blue Heron Records, 1985) Slickaphonics: Check Your Head at the Door (Teldec 1986) Slickaphonics: Live (Teldec 1987) (Source de.wikipedia.org and here on the Ray Anderson (musician) page) [7] [8]
Anyway now I'm not so sure about what to do with it. I'd be not very comfortable with editing a new page because I'm german and my english is not good enough. So I thought for the moment it's better I just leave it here and wait for reactions or flower pots beeing thrown at me ...
best regards Markus
Mli63 ( talk) 16:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Mli63 ( talk) 11:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Can we remove the genre path from the albums template? It's obvious it's not helping any of the articles, only opening them up to cherry picked sources and edit warring. -- 64.134.96.198 ( talk) 18:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I support this for many of the reasons already given. It would eliminate a huge drain on editors' time which is now spent reverting, discussing, opening SPIs, etc. Radiopathy •talk• 01:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
As troublesome as the field is, it's also very helpful. As a Wikipedia reader as well as an editor, I find the genre field quite useful. If I want to look up a new song to listen to (yes, I do that), I like to know if it's hip hop, rock, jazz, whatever; or if I hear a song in some style and I don't know what it is, I can find out the basic style. However, it can often get excessive and trivial (I've been guilty of adding such content in the past, but I try to avoid doing that now). It should be a good summary of what sources describe that album as, not every single style that might be used on the album. The problem is, over-eager editors or those who like/don't like a particular style or agree/disagree with the labeling of an album or song style often lose focus on the purpose of the template field and Wikipedia - to summarize material found in other sources.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 01:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Going to copy over my two cents from WT:WikiProject Musicians since there's larger discussion here... I think information such as the genre is valuable to the reader's understanding of the subject, and that it should be front and center with the rest of the facts. It's unique in that it is subject to opinion, which may in turn attract disruption, but we still want users to edit things they're interested in. It can spark discussion and yield a more broad consensus than there was before. The few edit warriors that come with it are just a normal consequence of the wiki — MusikAnimal talk 04:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagreed when the genre field was first removed in late 2008 (I keep forgetting to bookmark the actual discussion archive, but it was MASSIVE), and I will still disagree if it is done again. It's late and I'm not feeling too wordy right now, but many of my music 'discoveries' in the past decade have been made purely by having a glance at the genres in WP infoboxes—that being done for leisure, not academic scrutiny. On the whole, I find the genres to be accurate enough. There'll be some cases where there's too many, or too few, but usually at least one will give an idea of what music to expect. Granted, there'll be a few articles which will forever be the subject of intense genre warrior'ing, but I just think it's one of those things which WP cannot productively do anything about. Let it slide, and let the editors continue the battle against genre warriors. Besides, don't some of us find it rather.. fun? It certainly makes for a decent keyboard workout when bored! *smirk* Having done a bit of mild genre warrior'ing myself a few years ago, I can sit back and look at such heated discussions now and view them as a source of harmless entertainment. I can even amuse myself by reading over some of the haughty tripe I used to come up with, just for the sake of having an unsourced genre included. And y'know what—I wouldn't have it any other way. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 02:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Genre template should remain in album and song articles. It's gives a quick and easy view to what genre(s) the album or song is. — ₳aron 15:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Would it be okay to cite Blistering reviews as a source for genre citations? SonOfPlisskin ( talk) 01:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I was just wondering, does anybody know when the statistics are updated? I moved some articles a week or two ago but the numbers haven't changed. -- Divine618 ( talk) 21:19, 23 September 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
I'd like to write an article on a 1990s bootleg release titled Beware of ABKCO!, which consists of George Harrison running through some songs under consideration for his 1970 triple album All Things Must Pass. He's at Abbey Road, playing them for co-producer Phil Spector the day before the full sessions begin. The bootleg gets a fair amount of attention from Harrison biographers and Beatles authors (in the latter category, I'm thinking of Madinger & Easter's Eight Arms to Hold You and Bruce Spizer's The Beatles Solo on Apple Records), and it merits an article on AllMusic by Richie Unterberger.
What attracts me to having a wikipedia article about the bootleg is that six of the compositions (let alone these particular recordings) have never turned up on any official Harrison release; on wikipedia, those song titles currently redirect to All Things Must Pass, but an article dedicated to the run-through tape will reduce the amount of text needed under the album article's " Demo tracks and outtakes" subsection. On this point, even though we have dedicated song articles for all of the original album's disc 1 and 2 songs ("bonus" disc 3 being the mostly instrumental Apple Jam), there are currently 16 song/track redirects to the album article.
All I can think of in the way of precedents is A Toot and a Snore in '74, which captures a Los Angeles jam session by Lennon, McCartney and others. While this 1974 event undoubtedly has greater historical significance than Harrison's solo performance, I'd argue that of the two unofficial musical documents, Beware of ABKCO! is considerably better known than Toot. Has anyone got any thoughts on this – is it acceptable to have an article on the Harrison bootleg? Are there more precedents perhaps?
As an alternative, I've been considering an article titled something like: Outtakes and unreleased songs from George Harrison's ''All Things Must Pass''. That would cover Beware of ABKCO!, perhaps include more detail on Apple Jam also, and allow for further cuts to ATMP/Demo tracks & outtakes – because discussion of songs such as "Dehradun" and "Gopala Krishna" would have a new home, leaving just a brief mention of those songs in the album article. Again, any thoughts, examples of comparable situations, etc, would be welcome. Thanks, JG66 ( talk) 05:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
ee the discussion here. RockMagnetist ( talk) 05:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
See discussion here. Johnny338 ( talk) 20:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
album rating by answers.com is unreliable sources? and can it be use in Good and Featured aticles? it using allmusic database for review, but it's rating is diffrent. see lz2for example Sandman q23 ( talk) 05:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Would http://www.laut.de be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? I tried citing it in an article, but the source was challenged by another editor. I know it's a non-English source, but they are allowed to be cited to a certain extent. Kokoro20 ( talk) 19:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
11:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Released in 1994 by Backdoor records of the Philippines. A recording of the different indigenous instruments from the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.58.197 ( talk) 08:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
an album that features the songs of Ato Mariano a musician composer from Mindanao. Released in 1995 in Manila.-- 121.54.58.197 ( talk) 08:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
There is edit warring and genre conversation going on at Garbage (album) talk page. Any further input would be greatly appreciated. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 00:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Used prominently on music good articles, Idolator is a music "blog" (more in the style of a news blog) which features reviews of songs and albums, coverage on music releases and pop artists' other ventures; gossip and tabloid-y content has been posted in the past but there's almost no trace of it now. For some reason, it is almost always removed from WP:FAs though no signs of non-reliability have been given.
I also opened a discussion about the source in WP:RSN which has been archived and users who commented on it agreed that it was reliable. ([ here]) This discussion is to hopefully add it to WP:ALBUM/SOURCES and thus determine its reliability (or not). — prism △ 11:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Already Heard is a website that reports on band activity, to me personally It looks pretty decent, it has a load of staff including writers and photographers and has a lot of coverage, for example I am currently writing a draft for an upcoming
Mallory Knox album and one of the points is referenced by one of the bands Facebook posts which I want to replace, I want to use this article as the reference:
[1]
I personally believe this looks pretty good however as usual I like to check with others in case it is in fact regarded unreliable. Please share your opinions, thank you.
SilentDan297
talk
22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Should this even be listed as a source to avoid? Even though the site has non-professional reviewers, it does also have professional reviewers (like Tim Grierson, who is from Blender and Revolver, and Chad Bowar, who is from Loudwire), just like Sputnikmusic. If it is to stay in the sources to avoid list, it should also be in the recommended sources list for clarification, just like Sputnikmusic. Also, the link in mentioned in the list is to a thread where someone clearly says that opinions on the site's reliability has been mixed, judging on past discussions, so there hasn't even been a consensus that it's never reliable. I've seen people removing About.com from articles lately, saying it's not reliable and stuff (regardless of the author), so I thought of bringing this to discussion. Kokoro20 ( talk) 13:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I have made this test table. Feel free to improve it. Funny that when I browsed through the reviews I was unable to find reviews by Shawhan etc. Kindly add any reviewer I missed -- WonderBoy1998 ( talk) 16:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Critic | Genre | Reliable? | Reasoning |
---|---|---|---|
Steve Peake | 80s music | No | Unable to find any information regarding any other professional work. |
Melissa Bobbitt | 90s rock | Yes | Has written for Alternative Press and PopMatters ( here) |
Anthony Carew | Alternative music | Yes | Wrote for Rolling Stone, The Age ( here), and The Sydney Morning Herald ( here) |
Reverend Keith A. Gordon | Blues | Yes | Has written for AllMusic ( here) and has also written a book The Other Side of Nashville |
Warren Truitt | Children's music | No | Unable to find any information regarding any other professional work. |
Kim Jones | Christian music/gospel | Yes | Writes for Music Times ( here) |
Dave White | Classic rock | No | Unable to find any information regarding any other professional work. |
Aaron M. Green | Classical | No | Has completed the "NEA Arts Journalism Institute in Classical Music and Opera at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism" according to About.com bio. However, no reviews by this critic for a publication other than About.com have been found. |
Robert Silva | Country | Yes | Has written for AMC.com ( here) and All Media Guide according to résumé ( here) |
Ben Norman | Dance/Electronic | No | Unable to find any information regarding any other professional work. |
Jason Shawhan | Dance/Electronic | No | Member of the Southeastern Film Critics Association and has contributed to The Observer ( here), but no experience in music criticism |
Kim Ruehl | Folk | Yes | Writer for No Depression ( here). Has worked for Billboard ( here) and Yes! ( here). |
Chad Bowar | Heavy metal | Yes | Wrote for Loudwire. ( here) |
Michael Verity | Jazz | Yes | Has written reviews for Relix ( here) and American Songwriter, albeit for genres other than jazz. ( here) |
Carlos Quintana | Latin | No | Was "actively involved in the elaboration of the Latin music database for the Yahoo! Music site" according to About.com bio. An article he has written for About.com has been used by the site of the Institute of Latin America Studies at Anhui University ( here). However, no reviews by this critic for a publication other than About.com have been found. |
Robert Fontenot | Oldies | Yes | Contributes to OffBeat ( here). Has also worked for AOL and USA Today, according to About.com bio. |
Ryan Cooper | Punk | No | About.com bio claims his work has appeared in Alternative Press. Unable to confirm this through any other source. |
Ken Simmons | R&B/Soul | No | Has experience in R&B radio but not in critiquing |
Henry Adaso | Hip-hop/Rap | Yes | Written for Vibe, LA Weekly and XXL, Houston Press ( here), cited by MTV. Also founded and is currently editor-in-chief of The Rap Up. |
Tim Grierson | Rock | Yes | Wrote for Blender ( here and Rolling Stone ( here). |
Chris Caggiano | Theatre | Yes | Teaches courses in musical-theater history, arts criticism and the neuroscience of music at the Boston Conservatory, where he is a full-time faculty member. ( yes) |
Bill Lamb | Pop | No | Only other experience is as DJ for a college radio station |
Megan Romer | World | Yes | Written for No Depression ( here). Marketing director of Finger Lakes GrassRoots Festival of Music and Dance ( here) |
Mark Edward Nero | R&B | Yes | Wrote a weekly column for The San Diego Union-Tribune ( here). Work has also appeared in the Los Angeles Daily News, The Boston Globe and Pasadena Star-News, according to About.com bio |
Okay. I have changed the "Maybe(s)" to "No(s)." Also, if anyone finds a music editor missing from this table, kindly add them with a suitably sourced judgement regarding their reliability. -- WonderBoy1998 ( talk) 08:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Wanted to propose adding Loudwire to the list of sources. Loudwire is a website which daily updates news on rock and heavy metal and I find it very useful for information on lesser known bands. It has professional editorial staff, and it looks like a high-standard source. It features numerous interviews and album reviews, and I considered it essential for albums of this genre. On the other hand, Metal Storm and Punknews are largely user-edited websites, and there are few posts that you'll find appropriate for album articles. I think their inclusion on the list can be misleading to editors less involved in album articles to a certain degree.-- Retrohead ( talk) 11:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems standard now for editors to add bonus tracks as a hidden box on album articles, for example Exodus. I find it anoying and ugly, why hide the Sessions with Lee Perry, July / August 1977 tracks? It does also seem to contavene Scrolling lists and collapsible content: "Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, image galleries, and image captions." — 86.171.14.51 ( talk) 11:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject, I'm hoping to get some comments at Talk:List of double albums#"Can fit on one CD". A New Jersey-based IP with a history of disruptive edits, and a user account with a history of disruptive edits, ( they are likely the same actor,) have been adding "Can fit on one CD" to this list of double albums. Frankly, I don't see the value of this, as it appears to be crufty, and is comprised entirely of original research, ( "I did the math & CD'S Hold up to 79:57 of music. So back off.") and I was hoping to get some input from the community. I don't take their positions seriously since they have been disruptive, and I doubt they'll put together a coherent rebuttal, but I'm hoping to establish consensus one way or another, even if my instinct is wrong about the usefulness of the content. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Could we add Dummy to a list of sources? Their about us section seems legit to me. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 15:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I was just taking a look at So Tonight That I Might See (I can't believe this is a stub) when I noticed that the link to the Rolling Stones rating was broken. [2] Of course, I popped that sucker into archive.org and got the old link. [3] However, should the archive link be used in the ratings, or is there a way to find it on the current site? I could be wrong, but has RS paywalled all their old archival articles? Any help is appreciated, as this could have an impact on many album articles. Viriditas ( talk) 03:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Musichel is an entertainment weblog that specialises in pop culture. First incepted in October 2012, it has since flourished into a global pop culture website. It has featured several high-profile celebrities on its blog such as Jake T. Austin, R5, John Barrowman and Olivia Holt and has several reviews of music and films. I personally know a lot of teen-boppers who frequent this site for reviews and articles on young stars. While I do know the founder of this website, I feel that it is reliable, unbiased, accurate and should be considered for this list.
I don't know how to do it but can someone who knows what they're doing add the song Mambo Italiano by Rosemary Clooney to the soundtrack of the movie Married to the Mob? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxaxon2211 ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@ SNUGGUMS, WikiRedactor, Retrohead, WonderBoy1998, and Adabow: Are predominantly LGBT-targeted sources reliable for album/music reviews and other content? (e.g.: Philadelphia Gay News, Frontiers, Instinct, Next Magazine) Are those reputable enough to be included on an FA? pedro | talk 20:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If anyone on Wiki has the following issues:
Could you check their "album reviews" sections for a review of Natalia Kills' album Trouble? I can't find those issues anywhere online. It would be a huge favor. Thank you in advance pedro | talk 19:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
At Template talk:Infobox musical artist two editors have imposed what they believe to be a change to use flatlists rather than comma separated values to separate items. A full discussion should be had before changing. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The correct format for this album title really should be sorted out once and for all – it was suggested on the talk page as far back as 2011 that it should be formatted as Nothing But the Beat, which seems correct to me, and for the reasons suggested by the editor. Either way, it needs to be standardised: the article title uses "but" in lower case letters, while the article text uses upper case for both "But" and "The" (definitely wrong). i just wanted to run it by other editors to check I have interpreted the MOS correctly in this case, then I'll put it forward for a move request. Richard3120 ( talk) 22:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I just added a link to Billboard's own archive of scanned (and searchable) print back issues on the WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources page. The url is http://www.billboard.com/magazine-archive There are many missing issues, but I thought you guys might like to know :) Dcs002 ( talk) 08:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Was just tidying up the reviewer ratings in Lennon's Imagine, removing a non-staff Sputnik review, but the reviews by Adrian Denning and Common Sense Media remain there. Denning seems active currently and busy, and his opinions appear in several articles on Wikipedia. I imagine he may well have been discussed here in the past, maybe not … What do we think, is Denning an acceptable, reliable source? And Common Sense Media: is a "quality" rating (separate from their parental-guide score) acceptable in a table of reviewer ratings? Thanks, JG66 ( talk) 14:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, there is discussion whether we should include an article from Clash magazine as a review on the GA nominated article The Complete Studio Albums (1983 – 2008). I'm aware that Clash is an accepted review source, but not sure if the actual article is a review or not. Any thoughts on the topic would be welcome [Talk:The Complete Studio Albums (1983 – 2008) here]. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 13:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a current discussion on whether or not the certifications should be used on the Template:Certification Table Entry. Erick ( talk) 22:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
On the talk page for
The Wall I brought up an issue about the unique way the first edition LPs were packaged, with a large paper insert under the plastic wrap showing the Gerald Scarfe logo. (See
Talk:The Wall.) I made mention of it in the Packaging section of the article, and it was deleted by another editor. No one has commented at all on the talk page. Originally the section said "The logo and band name are presented on a sticker," and I added "originally a paper insert inside the LP's plastic wrapping." The other editor has removed any mention now of any of that, with the comment (revert - it isn't necessary to describe every tiny detail), as well as other clarifying information that was requested in a "clarification needed" tag (as well as the tag itself), and the section now says more about Hipgnosis & Storm Thorgerson (controversy about why he wasn't involved with this album) and other Floyd covers than it does about packaging for The Wall. The other editor refuses to discuss the matter anywhere but his own user talk page, and he has suggested that won't last either. I reverted his deletions once twice (two each now) and asked him on his user talk page to discuss things, but he undid the reversion without any discussion on the talk page. I have the impression he wants things his way and is unwilling to share the process of editing this article. I'd appreciate comments on the talk page, and maybe a little advice, or support if you agree that the insert (or anything else) should be mentioned in that very small section. Thanks!
Dcs002 (
talk)
11:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Somebody should do this, if the request was ok. -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 06:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I’m going to have this discussion closed soon, but I felt it would be a wiser option to advertise it more widely in the meantime. It’s been going on for several months now but I imagine I didn’t broadcast its existence as I needed to; any more input is greatly appreciated. If you have anything to add, please put it there, not here. Thank you. Lazy Bastard Guy 03:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know who the self appointed editor is to that page. But you or whoever it is that is posting - needs to stop posting claims that simply do not hold up when checked against the facts.
To suggest that 'Man on a Rock' is Oldfield's only second album where 'long' instrumental tracks are NOT included; is at best dubious (how do you define what is long or over long ?) and at worst completely false.
A quick check of Oldfield's discography shows that his 'Crisis' album of 1983 fits the criteria perfectly. There are no 'long' instrumentals in that album. Even QE2 from the year before fits the same claim : if you accept that one of the instrumentals is relatively short (when compared to Tubular bells) etc.
After Crisis was released : Oldfield produced numerous albums that were vocal orientated : aka songs.
So : please correct the claim or get rid of it : since it is effectively meaningless.
TubularWorld ( talk) 16:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The Crisis main track was 20 minutes long and was interspersed with vocals by Oldfiled,
The extra length track you are referring to as 'Taurus 111' is a much later version issued by Mercury in 2013 : That had a length of 20 minutes.
However, I rule the 'Crisis' track out because it contains Oldfield lyrics.
Hope this helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.157.109 ( talk) 05:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
TubularWorld ( talk) 06:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I could not find a discussion on this matter, so I am wondering what the consensus is on compilation templates such as {{ Relics tracks}}, {{ An Introduction to Syd Barrett tracks}}, {{ Endless Summer tracks}}, and {{ The Best of George Harrison tracks}}. Invariably, their use is restricted for songs and singles which did not see their original release. The closest guidance I could find pertaining to this issue is on Template:Infobox Album#Template:Singles which states:
- Do not include singles that were added as bonus tracks on a re-release of an album.
- For songs that appear on more than one album, list the song as a single only for the album(s) where the single was released as part of the marketing and promotion of that album. Examples:
- If a song is originally released as a single during the marketing and promotion of an album on which it also appears, and is subsequently included on a compilation album, list the song as a single only for the original album and not for the compilation album.
- If a song is originally released as an album track only, but is subsequently released as a single to promote the release of a compilation album, include the song as a single only for the compilation album.
None of this explicitly advises against extra track templates in song or single infoboxes. It would be nice to get some second opinions over adding track templates to them. I personally think extra track templates are perceived as the canonical equivalence to "alternate covers" meaning that they do not inherently suggest that a song/single is from, say, a compilation. I think the addition of such templates should be OK if there is rhyme or reason behind its use. What I would consider reasonable use of the template would be adding {{ Magical Mystery Tour tracks}} to the " Strawberry Fields Forever" and " Penny Lane" infoboxes. While the 1967 Magical Mystery Tour LP released by Capitol was not the original release of the single, I feel that its exclusion denies readers the harmless luxury of easy navigation through album tracks. See this edit-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 19:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear album experts: Although I am a musician, I haven't done much work with charts. Is this an appropriate article topic, and is using the charting organization as a reference okay? — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Kimbra's second studio album "The Golden Echo" came out today and the Wikipedia page for it is very incomplete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.58.236 ( talk • contribs) 24 August 2014 04:15 (UTC)
I've done a lot of work on The Byrds-related articles, but something that's always bugged me is that the band's ninth album is called (Untitled), with the parentheses being a part of the title, but the album's article is located at Untitled (The Byrds album). Should I move it to (Untitled) (The Byrds album) or is there a reason why we don't start album articles with parentheses? -- Kohoutek1138 ( talk) 23:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there!
I'm currently involved in a discussion about the song titles on a soundtrack album.
I have provided a link to discogs.com which provides a typed track list and also links to photos of the physical album and its packaging. It does this for 42 different versions/pressings of this album.
Another editor rejects this a being a "primary source" and refers to two books as secondary sources that associates different titles to the songs in question.
(The example in question is the three-song suite towards the end of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. In dispute is the name of the suite and its first song.)
My question to the project are:
1. Is the track information taken from the physical album a valid enough source for a track list? I would think so since, even if it is a primary source, per Wikipedia:No original research, primary sources are suitable for a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." There is no interpretation, analysis or synthesis going on, hence no secondary source is needed IMHO.
2. How to proceed if there are secondary sources that disagree with the information taken from the CDs/LPs etc.?
I'd be grateful if someone could comment on Talk:The Rocky Horror Picture Show, where the discussion takes place. Str1977 (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Str1977 (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
" MuuMuse is a US-based pop music blog that is published daily", it was reliable? 183.171.167.253 ( talk) 14:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#RfC: Should participants in the personnel section be ordered alphabetically?, about how to order personnel sections of album articles. Interested editors are encouraged to join in the discussion there (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). — Mudwater ( Talk) 14:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I created an article for Raffi's newest album, Love Bug, but someone marked it as violating copyright, despite having a list of songs that parallels the lists in other Raffi albums. Any comments anyone has?? I would like to see if anyone can compare Love Bug (Raffi) with Singable Songs for the Very Young and see if the former article can be altered to parallel the latter in article in any way. Georgia guy ( talk) 00:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Days Go By has a parental advisory label that is a removable sticker on the American CD release. Does anyone know if the American CD releases of Splinter (their first with the PA label), or Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace have the removable sticker like Days Go By, or have it printed on the cover art, unlike Days Go By? 173.51.123.97 ( talk) 20:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
After a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation, we want to try and get more subject knowledge onto reviews of draft submissions, which is sadly lacking. As a semi-regular of this reasonably active project, I've picked it for a guinea pig and tagged a bunch of album articles (these are easy to spot as they have "album" in the title!) and put them in Category:Draft-Class Album articles. There's a current problem in that category lists all drafts, not just those awaiting review, but hopefully I can find a solution for that soon.
If you have an account over 90 days old, over 500 edits, and understand basic policy, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation#How to get involved and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Should we use reviews from AXS that's a ticket merchant for album reviews in critical reception sections on articles such as My Everything and Worlds.03:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdditionSubtraction ( talk • contribs)
RustynRose recently added a review from http://metalholic.com with this edit. Looking through the website, it appears to be a few fans writing their own reviews. A Google search didn't turn up much in the way of establishing reliability (specifically the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" requirement). I'm also concerned as this editor's name is the same as the editor-in-chief for the website (according to http://metalholic.com/about/), so it's likely these are the same person (and I have left a COI message on that editor's talk page), and that COI concerns me. But, does anyone else think this passes WP:RS? I think that whatever the outcome of this discussion, that outcome should be added to WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 18:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Parachutes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see talk:Parachutes -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 06:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Why isn't music publisher a category ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.21.154 ( talk) 15:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Is this allowed? I'm not looking to create cruft or put forth any kind of POV agenda, but rather add different takes on an album beyond just the usual go-to AllMusic review. In this case, I'm referring to two separate All About Jazz reviews ( 1, 2) for the Allan Holdsworth album None Too Soon. Both are in-depth and discuss slightly different things, which provides useful material for a critical reception section that I'm in the process of writing up. So, can I use them both? Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 19:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, ok I just created an account - read some of the guidelines and now try to add some. Don't be too harsh if I'm wrong.
I'm just putting together a collection of music for my son and so far WP is agreat source for information. To do something constructive i now try to bring something into discussion.
The search for the Slickaphonics ended up on the "In Concert (Miles Davis album)" page
Actually the Slickaphonics are also a band around trombone player Ray Anderson
discography of the S. Slickaphonics: Modern Life (Enja, 1982) Slickaphonics: Wow Bag (Enja, 1983) Slickaphonics: Humatonic Energy (Blue Heron Records, 1985) Slickaphonics: Check Your Head at the Door (Teldec 1986) Slickaphonics: Live (Teldec 1987) (Source de.wikipedia.org and here on the Ray Anderson (musician) page) [7] [8]
Anyway now I'm not so sure about what to do with it. I'd be not very comfortable with editing a new page because I'm german and my english is not good enough. So I thought for the moment it's better I just leave it here and wait for reactions or flower pots beeing thrown at me ...
best regards Markus
Mli63 ( talk) 16:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Mli63 ( talk) 11:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Can we remove the genre path from the albums template? It's obvious it's not helping any of the articles, only opening them up to cherry picked sources and edit warring. -- 64.134.96.198 ( talk) 18:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I support this for many of the reasons already given. It would eliminate a huge drain on editors' time which is now spent reverting, discussing, opening SPIs, etc. Radiopathy •talk• 01:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
As troublesome as the field is, it's also very helpful. As a Wikipedia reader as well as an editor, I find the genre field quite useful. If I want to look up a new song to listen to (yes, I do that), I like to know if it's hip hop, rock, jazz, whatever; or if I hear a song in some style and I don't know what it is, I can find out the basic style. However, it can often get excessive and trivial (I've been guilty of adding such content in the past, but I try to avoid doing that now). It should be a good summary of what sources describe that album as, not every single style that might be used on the album. The problem is, over-eager editors or those who like/don't like a particular style or agree/disagree with the labeling of an album or song style often lose focus on the purpose of the template field and Wikipedia - to summarize material found in other sources.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 01:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Going to copy over my two cents from WT:WikiProject Musicians since there's larger discussion here... I think information such as the genre is valuable to the reader's understanding of the subject, and that it should be front and center with the rest of the facts. It's unique in that it is subject to opinion, which may in turn attract disruption, but we still want users to edit things they're interested in. It can spark discussion and yield a more broad consensus than there was before. The few edit warriors that come with it are just a normal consequence of the wiki — MusikAnimal talk 04:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagreed when the genre field was first removed in late 2008 (I keep forgetting to bookmark the actual discussion archive, but it was MASSIVE), and I will still disagree if it is done again. It's late and I'm not feeling too wordy right now, but many of my music 'discoveries' in the past decade have been made purely by having a glance at the genres in WP infoboxes—that being done for leisure, not academic scrutiny. On the whole, I find the genres to be accurate enough. There'll be some cases where there's too many, or too few, but usually at least one will give an idea of what music to expect. Granted, there'll be a few articles which will forever be the subject of intense genre warrior'ing, but I just think it's one of those things which WP cannot productively do anything about. Let it slide, and let the editors continue the battle against genre warriors. Besides, don't some of us find it rather.. fun? It certainly makes for a decent keyboard workout when bored! *smirk* Having done a bit of mild genre warrior'ing myself a few years ago, I can sit back and look at such heated discussions now and view them as a source of harmless entertainment. I can even amuse myself by reading over some of the haughty tripe I used to come up with, just for the sake of having an unsourced genre included. And y'know what—I wouldn't have it any other way. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 02:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Genre template should remain in album and song articles. It's gives a quick and easy view to what genre(s) the album or song is. — ₳aron 15:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Would it be okay to cite Blistering reviews as a source for genre citations? SonOfPlisskin ( talk) 01:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I was just wondering, does anybody know when the statistics are updated? I moved some articles a week or two ago but the numbers haven't changed. -- Divine618 ( talk) 21:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)