![]() | 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 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
A discussion not long ago popped up regarding the reliability of The Needle Drop, a music orientated review blog, (see here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#The Needle Drop - Discussion of The Needle Drop), and based on the reading of this discussion I think that The reception section of the album article style guide and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources is outdated on what the qualifications for a spot in the critical reception section should be. Music magazines and newspaper are becoming less influential in the music industry and music blogs are gaining huge followings. I'm not convinced that being on the payroll and being from a "traditional" publication is reason enough to deem your critique more important any more. Do people disapprove of the reviews of blog's such as The Needle Drop because their opinion's are not published in "reliable", traditional publications such as The Rolling Stone, or is it because it is a new medium of publication that editors believe imitate legitimacy, despite rising influence - It should also be noted that The Needle Drop, the example used, does get paid for what he does and has media presence outside of his own website/youtube channel. Surely prioritizing tradition over reality isn't very encyclopedic. Thoughts? Am I missing something here? RatRat ( talk) 16:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
A small thing to ask about the guideline discouraging its use: if the AllMusic sidebar states that an album is (e.g.) heavy metal, and the review (simply noting song highlights and whether to recommend the album or not) makes no mention of genres, can the sidebar then be used if better sources are not available? I'm referring to obscure or lesser-known albums without a great deal of coverage, where a complete AllMusic review (with a star rating and prose) winds up as the main source for notability. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 00:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
A NFCR is currently taking place that members of this project may wish to participate in. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Yeezus Kanye West.jpg. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 16:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, several months ago I took up the job to transform the article of sources into one single and easy to understand table, but shorty after I started time has become somewhat difficult to manage. I of course still do Wikipedia but this job is massive! I would like to ask if it is possible to move the work in progress table to here for others to help build up on? Here is the table itself: User:SilentDan297/sandbox#Table - SilentDan ( talk) 15:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Years ago, User:Jogers created these lists that were helpful for album cleanup tasks:
It would be great if someone with bot knowledge could figure out how to do this again. Thanks. Fisherjs ( talk) 11:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
we don't need a source for the genre every album and song, for many you can't even get sources seems to contradicts the guideline that is summarized: "requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". In general, the album's style should be discussed and sources in the article in a style or composition section and the infobox should be a summary of that. I have also seen references added directly to the genres in the infobox. This article in particular has had many genre warriors. A standard practice is to remove all genres in that case. Comments? Suggestion? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
A peer review request can be found here. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm one of the delegates at WP:FLC (aka one of the editors that promotes/doesn't promote Featured List nominations). Lately we've been noticing a problem at FLC, particularly with music-related nominations, and I thought I'd drop by just to give you all a heads-up about it. Basically what we've been seeing is nominations where shortly after the nomination begins several other music editors drop by to vote support without any comments beyond "good job" or the like. Perfectly fine, if there's no real issues with the list, but several times recently those initial "reviews" have been followed by 2-3 fairly substantive reviews by other editors that find some major issues with both the list itself (tables, etc.) and the prose. (not to pick on anyone, but example 1, example 2.) When that happens, it gives off the impression that the initial reviewers didn't, well, actually review the list. I really, really don't think it's anything so untoward as editors trying to create easy passes, or support trading- what I think is that some editors, even those with plenty of experience, just take a brief glance at the list, say "yup, looks good", and support.
The problem is, when we (the delegates) see supports without comments, followed by several intensive reviews that show big problems with the list? We basically have to throw out the initial supports as invalid. This wastes everyone's time, including the nominator's and the initial reviewers', and tends to really upset the nominator. It's just a bad time all around. This is not a problem that's limited to music lists, and not even a problem that's limited to FLC- there was a while, for example, when WP:VG nominations at FAC would get several quick-supports from well-meaning editors, but the only effect was to piss off the FAC delegates and hinder the nominations.
All I'm saying is, if you're reviewing a nomination at FLC (no matter the subject)? Please take at least 5-10 minutes and look through it closely for prose, grammar, logic, formatting, and referencing issues. Just supporting without reviewing a bit in-depth actually hurts more than it helps- it stalls the nominations, upsets the other reviewers and the nominator, and too much of it can sour editors on FLC/music lists/whatever. Thanks! -- Pres N 01:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:ALBUM/SOURCE says that Sputnik staff/emeritus reviews are usable on articles and contributor/user reviews are not. I was checking reviews on Human (Death album) and noticed the sputnik review is written by a "user": link, which means this review should be removed from the article. However, checking through an archived version of the review I noticed that the writer was listed as a "staff" member in 2014 when this review was added to the article, link, so the addition would have been valid then according to our guidelines. Furthermore, I checked an older archived version and saw that the writer was listed as a "user" when the review was published in 2010: link. Also, note that the review content and score has completely changed between 2014 and now, I assume when this writer was delisted as a "staff" member, but the original publication date (2010) still remains on the revised review.
Two main problems arise from this example. Firstly, "Staff" reviews could be removed from articles when a the writer's position is changed to "user". Secondly, "user" reviews could be added to articles when a writer is promoted to a "staff" position even though the review was published when they were a regular user. The guideline should be revised to say that the writer must be a "staff" member on the date the review was published, not before or after. But then this leads to another problem: for every sputnik review we include on Wikipedia, we must check an archived version on the date of publication to see if they were listed as a "staff" member as most of their writers appear to have been non-professional users at one point. I'm not sure we will have archived version of every sputnik review listed here on the date of publication. And then we have the problem that reviews are being completely rewritten with new scores without the publication date being updated, adding further confusion.
Any thoughts on this? Has this issue been addressed before in a previous discussion I've missed? (Sidenote: Why is Sputnik even listed on WP:ALBUM/SOURCE as professional in the first place? Is it because the site is popular and snowball effect made it become a regular source on Wikipedia? Or can anyone point me somewhere that indicates they have professional editorial team rather than just paying forum members/contributors to write reviews and changing the writer's site status?) -- The1337gamer ( talk) 01:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Allmusic to be moved to Template:AllMusic. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 17:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Beauty and the Beast: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack to be moved to Beauty and the Beast (soundtrack). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for In Paradisum (Symfonia album) to be moved to In Paradisum (album). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Bloodwork (Texas in July album) to be moved to Bloodwork (album). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A number of songs on my watchlist recently were categorized into "199X songs" categories. I did not find this to be particularly helpful, especially as the songs were never notable in the slightest. (They were merged to the album at AfD and are likely not even helpful as redirects but alas.) Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects advises against this sort of non-particular use, and I can't find any community consensus apart from being told it'd be tedious and no outside response in 2010. My discussion with the editor is here. Should song redirects be categorized? czar ⨹ 12:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
R from modification}}
. But if there is no article about the song itself, and the redir points to an article about the album containing the song (such as
Columbia (Oasis song)), then it is quite in order to put the cats that are specific to the song onto the redirect. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 13:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You are entitled to an opinion, but you still need consensus to change. Since my last post I checked out other redirects that are also categorized, in those few minutes I found, Buster Baxter, LHR, Decay (Exemplar), Stephanie Rogers (Dallas)
Smosh, Rafi Fine, Dylan Hockley, Anthony Walker (murder victim), The Albert Anastasia EP. None of which I have ever edited, which does reinforce the point that if WP:REDCAT should be amended, then WP:ALBUMS or WP:SONGS is not the place to have the discussion. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 17:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
A Request for Comments about the use of album covers is currently on at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Cover dispute. It would be greatly appreciated to have more opinions on the matter. Lewismaster ( talk) 21:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there any purpose being served by the many Johnny Cash album articles being numbered ("third album", "27th album", etc). The existence of discography lists and the Johnny Cash template renders such things redundant and also it creates a situation where dozens of articles need to be revised now because someone counted The Lure of the Grand Canyon as a Cash album when it is not (he contributed a spoken-word track, that's all). So now every album thereafter has to be renumbered. The numbering is also being used for compilation albums, albums by other labels containing Cash recordings, etc. It's confusing and meaningless. Unless someone objects when time permits I'll follow WP:BOLD and strip all such references (or if someone else wants to do it, please feel free!). The numbering issue kicks in with All Aboard the Blue Train which was a compilation album, not a release of new material. 68.146.52.234 ( talk) 21:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Kill 'Em All (Metallica album) regarding how to present chart information in cases where an album has re-charted at various times over the years, usually when re-issued. Additional input would be greatly appreciated. Piriczki ( talk) 14:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 4#Debut album. I'm surprised that there isn't an article covering the concept of "debut albums." Is that something that could be added to Album at least? Tavix | Talk 14:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I want to ask whether a person needs to be re-introduced (full name, profession, linked) in the first section of an album article if he is already mentioned in the lead? Cliff Burton, Peter Mensch, Don Brautigam, etc. are mentioned in the lead of Master of Puppets and do they need to be mentioned with full name or just surname in the "Background and recording"? Cliff Burton's article implies so, but I'd like to hear other opinions.-- Retrohead ( talk) 12:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not listed at the top of the page, but it is listed in the charts section, so it was a single from the soundtrack.-- 108.239.228.112 ( talk) 20:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I've opened a move request for the above album: you can see my reasoning on the related talk page. As this album is rated as "top importance" on this WikiProject's importance scale, it would kind of make a mockery of that rating if nobody contributed to the discussion. ;-) Please feel free to add your comments for or against the move. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
A controversy between myself and User:Esszet about the use of non-free multiple covers in music albums articles started while editing Shades of Deep Purple and was discussed in Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Cover dispute. With the contribution of other editors, what came out of the discussion was the lack of a clear rule for the use of covers in infobox and extra album cover templates. Template:Infobox album recites "An image of the official front cover of the original version of the album (or a reissue, if no original cover can be found) should be included at Cover". Assuming that with some research on the Internet more than 99% of original covers can be retrieved, I think that the words "official" and "original" need some clarification, because there are too many examples of random use of covers in the articles. Here are some criteria used in album articles which emerged from the discussion:
In my edits I always used the first criterion, often reversing the placement of covers selected with different standards, but this is not a universally accepted behavior. For example, Led Zeppelin and many Loudness discography articles should follow the first or third criterion, but sport the most popular covers instead. Out of Our Heads apparently follows the third criterion, Open Up and Say... Ahh! the first and second and so on. Wouldn't it be better to have only one standard for cover selection? I would really appreciate some input on the matter by other editors and maybe reach a consensus to better define the use of covers. Lewismaster ( talk) 07:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey everyone!
To be honest, I don't even know where to start to be as factual as simple matters of facts, but the only merit that really counts for an inclusion of any subject of interest into Wikipedia is general notability. So whatever criteria the four-point listing above suggests, I can agree with one and only, and the very last, actually (if that's what popularity stands for here, Esszet, to be clear). To explain:
I was trying to clarify the key reasons in favor of the most notable cover, not more national one or so as there is no such term, unless we talk about official anthems. All releases of any commercial single are equal to each other, they only deal with global restrictions due to various taxes rates which are a subject of individual local governments, not one nation[al]. So the only thing that could make also two single's covers of a song much different on that level, would occur if the song was to be sold either and solely in one concrete country, which is not the case, or duty-free (i.e. promotional) at least elsewhere; also out of the question.
Categorizing subjects based on nationalism would also discriminate all outsiders to win e.g. MTV, Emmy and/or Nobel Prize awards, simply because these themselves are neither American, Swedish, nor whoever (who cares?). They could be nominated, however in practice, there's NO way out they would what so ever get the winning spot eventually; period! Given that, what difference would make to these "misfits" to receive a nominating bid knowing they have to lose it in advance, and indefinitely? Please, tell me. In a more music-related environment, this model of behavior would also result in other controversial situations such as that, for a change, U.S. artists could NEVER be entitled to topping any international music chart for, basically, they wouldn't be native enough to achieve a status of foreign chart entries, regardless of their own sales figures in respective regions. Do you see now, what nonsense some of you are implying while so-locating national preferences? So I would recommed all to open their eyes finally world-wide-ly, because a nationality or country of origin does NOT matter at all. What does though, is notability as whole or such originality only — to my blessed knowledge. Thanks for attention. MiewEN ( talk) 21:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I used to assumed that having two cover arts is not that excessive. However, administrators like masem and some others like IndianBio have disagreed, so we must reluctantly use one. Regarding nationality, I usually prefer one that was physically available to a singer's original home country, like Australia or America. However, I may choose an edition from abroad under following special circumstances, especially for older releases:
That's what I've done. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I've discussed singles. Moving on to albums, usually one is enough. If another is necessary more than just decorative or apparent, perhaps I shall add it. Sometimes disagreements lead to just one cover art used. That's the case for Let It Loose (album). I uploaded one extra cover art, but it was removed as unnecessary and decorative. George Ho ( talk) 10:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Lewismaster — you are skipping steps. Based on my arguments, you need to define which release is the most notable first. So you'd might look at the worldwide charts for your number one and support the most notable, not a "temporal", "local" or "its author's favorite" as suggested point by point by the other(s) around for pretty much disputable reasons. Then you'll be very likely not keen on using multiple covers ever. If still so though, your second choice should be just second chart topper as any decision related to one subject may not be based on two different criteria; that makes sense, dude. MiewEN ( talk) 20:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
George Ho — regarding "Finally" issue, I suggest to nominate the only and UK cover for the work (used also across Europe), or else the release which reached the highest position on the official music charts as fully explained on the relevant talk page earlier. To explain further; either you or Hasteur, or both of you as it appears to me now, has moved the problem to another level, because I don't dispute using one cover only as a matter of fact. But you do, judging by your post-inclusion of additional cover in the meantime. Well then, better mind establishing a commentary for an extra non-free cover art as specified in the NFC guide, because I am not to assist you with that. That is solely your purpose, not mine. I'm OK with one cover art (based on notability as said, nothing else) and that's all I can offer. MiewEN ( talk) 20:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Lewismaster — Oh boy, you're drowning in technical details and fast. To make the story short. If you find difficult to cover a music work with sources related to the records charts, sales figures and/or else, then neither its cover is most likely much to general notability but a collector's as you said. This stuff has no column around, far less to ask for headlines; copy that. Anyway, if the first official cover option works for you, then you don't need any "multi" along and your problem's solved. Well, you guys sort out your goals for it doesn't seem you know what you really want. MiewEN ( talk) 18:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if the WikiProject is aware, but there's a discussion at
Template talk:Track listing#Grammar is not needed concerning {{
track listing}}
, specifically, whether the words "were" and "was" should be included in the template, so that the present text "All songs written and composed by X."/"All lyrics written by Y, all music composed by Z." would instead read "All songs were written and composed by X."/"All lyrics were written by Y, all music was composed by Z.". --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I've been browsing archive.org for some older sites to source reviews from. I've come across Playlouder and Dotmusic as notable sources? Thoughts? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Now, this is something that really bugs me: people adding genres to albums of which we have not even heard a teaser, let alone a single song, just "because all of that band/artist's music is tagged like that". I find this really unprofessional, as we should not assume "artistic inertia", particularly in a medium where style changes are far from unheard of. There are of course occasionally primary source claims of the style a particular album will take, but even that should be taken with a pinch of salt (if I had a record for every album claimed to be rock and roll or punk and that ended up being completely unlike them, I probably would have a much larger collection).
Case in point, The Book of Souls: while I don't expect for Maiden to suddenly release an album full of NWWesque collages and folk ditties, it is not outside the realm of possibilities that they'll end up doing something that's much closer to progressive metal or even power metal than straight up heavy metal (yes, I know the term also works as an umbrella for all metal, but it's a de facto particular style). 190.109.207.10 ( talk) 17:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi WP:Albums guys, I'm from WP:Pro Wrestling. We have several stubs of music albums on professional wrestling. I want to know how to prove their notability (or lack thereof, then delete them). The wrestling websites I frequent don't mention these music albums. Is there a standard list of music album or music album review websites which if a album fails to appear on those, then it's considered not notable?
Thank you very much and have a nice day. starship .paint ~ KO 06:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
RM discussion ongoing; make comments there. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of facelift is under discussion, see talk:facelift (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 04:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the table assessing articles by importance/quality on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment page, it's clear that it includes a lot of junk. The 1,284 albums listed as "N/A importance, stub class" seem to consist of formerly existing articles that have been AfD'd at some point, and now redirect to the article about the artist themselves. Is there no way of removing these articles from the categories and the table? I think a large number of the Low Importance albums could happily be AfD'd or redirected to a parent article: I'm willing to make a start on this task myself, although with tens of thousands of them it's going to take a very long time to work through them all.
I also think some of the importance ratings should be re-evaluated, particularly in the High Importance category – among the 20 albums categorised as "high importance, stub class", and with all due respect to the artists and their fans, I don't think anybody could seriously claim that Magia (Toque Profundo album), The Walking or Wired for Sound (among others) are albums of "high" importance. Am I able to reclassify them myself? I do believe that thoroughly re-evaluating the Top and High Importance albums, particularly down at the Start and Stub Class levels, would help to focus attention on the genuinely important albums where work should be prioritised, and help improve them. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
If an album article redirects to the artist the two main options are 1) remove project template and redirect the talkpage to the artist talkpage, and 2) change the project template class to "Redirect", and tag the talkpage with {{ talk page of redirect}}. Generally, if there has been no previous discussion on the talkpage a straightforward redirect would be appropriate. If there has been some discussion there needs to be a decision made as to if the discussion should be left in place and option 2 followed, or if the discussion should be archived on the talkpage of the artist page and option 1 used. That decision can come down to common sense; though if in doubt ask for a second opinion.
As regards A/2 - that album is clearly not notable, so I have redirected it to the artist. For an album to be considered notable, it needs some non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Mere listing is regarded as not significant enough. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
While we are talking about importance, I see there are ~35,000 stub-class and ~13,000 start-class albums currently without importance ratings. While it wouldn't be perfect, does anyone think it worthwhile to request that a bot rates all of these as 'low importance'? Something from Category:Autoassessment bots could easily do this, and it would tidy up the table a little bit. It's a huge assumption to rate them all as low importance, of course, but any contentious ratings could quickly be reassessed by humans. What does everyone else think? — sparklism hey! 15:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
User Bogglenose123 has for some reason taken it upon themselves to create Get Weird (album) when Get Weird already exists – it appears the text for the two versions is identical, and the sole difference between them is the addition of the alternative cover for the deluxe edition of the album. What's the correct solution for this... copying the extra album cover to Get Weird and then placing a redirect on the newly created article? (As there are no other articles titled Get Weird, the version with the "album" disambiguator should be the one to go.) And if this is the correct solution, is there somebody able to do this for me please, as redirects are not my strong point? 00:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Richard3120 ( talk)
I often run into this site when searching for album reviews. Even though it's listed as an unreliable source at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, it never seems that a consensus was ever established whether it's reliable or not, not even from the thread that was linked there. So, should this be clarified to mean only the user reviews are unreliable? I noticed several albums on there are reviewed by " UG Team", a group of staff users from the site. Kokoro20 ( talk) 04:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Boy Cried Wolf is under discussion, see talk:Boy Cried Wolf (album) -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 05:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
A summary of a Featured Article tagged by this wikiproject will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank ( push to talk) 13:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Can some one point me to any discussion on Wilson & Alroy's record review site as a source or give the results of any discussion on if it is considered acceptable? Site is at: http://www.warr.org/cgi-bin/randompickpan2.cgi Thanks! Airproofing ( talk) 03:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI, since I've seen this book incorporated often for scores in the ratings template but credited erroneously as Spin, I created Spin Alternative Record Guide yesterday, so feel encouraged to use it and link it properly. Similar to The Rolling Stone Album Guide rather than Rolling Stone. Dan56 ( talk) 05:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I could've sworn I'd seen Goldmine in the list of sources in years gone by … Does anyone object to its inclusion? I've got a couple of old print issues in my collection: very thorough in its style for discographies, from what I can see; reporting seems dry and concise, much like Billboard of old. Contributors, going back decades, include Dave Thompson, Gillian G. Gaar and Harvey Kubernik. (Those are the ones I've heard of, anyway.) Some album reviews are available online, although it seems the star rating doesn't always appear there. Any thoughts? JG66 ( talk) 16:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Interested editors are invited to discuss here. Chase ( talk | contributions) 20:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Ongoing move discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I have opened a peer review for the article List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States. I am looking for input from anyone who has experience with working on list of best-selling albums or singles. Thanks! Erick ( talk) 16:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The usage and topic of Peace Pipe is under discussion, see talk:Peace pipe (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 04:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The usage, naming and primary topic of Stratospheric is under discussion, see talk:Stratospheric -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 11:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Venting is under discussion, see talk:Venting (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 05:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Live in America (The Babys album) was, according to its article, released in 2008 on some indie label. However, it says right at the top of the same article that it was originally released in 2001 by EMI as Valentine Babys. I was able to verify that. It would make sense to redo the article to reflect the original release date and title, and just add in the re-release info as is usual (and easy in this case, as nothing was added).
However, I haven't really moved heavily linked articles like this before, so I just wanted to run down a list and have someone look at it to make sure I didn't miss anything in my tasklist before I do it. It's in no particular order other than not moving the article until last.
Should that cover everything? MSJapan ( talk) 17:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Judging from dates, the group was also attempting to peak as musical tastes were shifting. MSJapan ( talk) 20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I have a question about release dates. A lot of albums are made available for online streaming a little while before the official commercial release. Should the date they're made available for streaming be counted as the release date or should it be the commercial release date? Littlecarmen ( talk) 14:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Could we include Time, The Plain Dealer, The Austin Chronicle, The Sydney Morning Herald, Entertainment.ie on the WP:ALBUM/SOURCES page or have they been excluded on purpose? Cool Marc 06:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Need a quick opinion on the reliablity of this source that I've seen added recently: [4] It appears to be a blog from their about page that has got some media press, but I'm not sure if we should count it as a reliable source. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 16:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Earthh:@ Nerdtrap: Re this, this and this. We discussed the issue with Dustblower, in fact, a while back. I know there was some talk then about standardising all, but regardless of that, DB did concede that the disc symbols he introduced should go. Not long after that PopMatters (another source we discussed) changed their ratings from discs to stars, a redesign that affected all of the site's previous reviews also, which took away part of the problem, I guess. Anyway, it would appear that yes, the alternative/disc symbols should go, but rather than stars, they should now have numerals. JG66 ( talk) 14:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The Category:Albums by gold certification, and related subcategories, have been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 01:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I proposed a merger of two articles. Comment there. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Does anybody mind checking grammar in this article I created? ( Graal (album)). I'm not a native speaker and I'm afraid that I might've made some mistakes Tashi Talk to me 18:47, 17 September 2015 (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 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
A discussion not long ago popped up regarding the reliability of The Needle Drop, a music orientated review blog, (see here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#The Needle Drop - Discussion of The Needle Drop), and based on the reading of this discussion I think that The reception section of the album article style guide and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources is outdated on what the qualifications for a spot in the critical reception section should be. Music magazines and newspaper are becoming less influential in the music industry and music blogs are gaining huge followings. I'm not convinced that being on the payroll and being from a "traditional" publication is reason enough to deem your critique more important any more. Do people disapprove of the reviews of blog's such as The Needle Drop because their opinion's are not published in "reliable", traditional publications such as The Rolling Stone, or is it because it is a new medium of publication that editors believe imitate legitimacy, despite rising influence - It should also be noted that The Needle Drop, the example used, does get paid for what he does and has media presence outside of his own website/youtube channel. Surely prioritizing tradition over reality isn't very encyclopedic. Thoughts? Am I missing something here? RatRat ( talk) 16:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
A small thing to ask about the guideline discouraging its use: if the AllMusic sidebar states that an album is (e.g.) heavy metal, and the review (simply noting song highlights and whether to recommend the album or not) makes no mention of genres, can the sidebar then be used if better sources are not available? I'm referring to obscure or lesser-known albums without a great deal of coverage, where a complete AllMusic review (with a star rating and prose) winds up as the main source for notability. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 00:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
A NFCR is currently taking place that members of this project may wish to participate in. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Yeezus Kanye West.jpg. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 16:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, several months ago I took up the job to transform the article of sources into one single and easy to understand table, but shorty after I started time has become somewhat difficult to manage. I of course still do Wikipedia but this job is massive! I would like to ask if it is possible to move the work in progress table to here for others to help build up on? Here is the table itself: User:SilentDan297/sandbox#Table - SilentDan ( talk) 15:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Years ago, User:Jogers created these lists that were helpful for album cleanup tasks:
It would be great if someone with bot knowledge could figure out how to do this again. Thanks. Fisherjs ( talk) 11:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
we don't need a source for the genre every album and song, for many you can't even get sources seems to contradicts the guideline that is summarized: "requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". In general, the album's style should be discussed and sources in the article in a style or composition section and the infobox should be a summary of that. I have also seen references added directly to the genres in the infobox. This article in particular has had many genre warriors. A standard practice is to remove all genres in that case. Comments? Suggestion? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
A peer review request can be found here. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm one of the delegates at WP:FLC (aka one of the editors that promotes/doesn't promote Featured List nominations). Lately we've been noticing a problem at FLC, particularly with music-related nominations, and I thought I'd drop by just to give you all a heads-up about it. Basically what we've been seeing is nominations where shortly after the nomination begins several other music editors drop by to vote support without any comments beyond "good job" or the like. Perfectly fine, if there's no real issues with the list, but several times recently those initial "reviews" have been followed by 2-3 fairly substantive reviews by other editors that find some major issues with both the list itself (tables, etc.) and the prose. (not to pick on anyone, but example 1, example 2.) When that happens, it gives off the impression that the initial reviewers didn't, well, actually review the list. I really, really don't think it's anything so untoward as editors trying to create easy passes, or support trading- what I think is that some editors, even those with plenty of experience, just take a brief glance at the list, say "yup, looks good", and support.
The problem is, when we (the delegates) see supports without comments, followed by several intensive reviews that show big problems with the list? We basically have to throw out the initial supports as invalid. This wastes everyone's time, including the nominator's and the initial reviewers', and tends to really upset the nominator. It's just a bad time all around. This is not a problem that's limited to music lists, and not even a problem that's limited to FLC- there was a while, for example, when WP:VG nominations at FAC would get several quick-supports from well-meaning editors, but the only effect was to piss off the FAC delegates and hinder the nominations.
All I'm saying is, if you're reviewing a nomination at FLC (no matter the subject)? Please take at least 5-10 minutes and look through it closely for prose, grammar, logic, formatting, and referencing issues. Just supporting without reviewing a bit in-depth actually hurts more than it helps- it stalls the nominations, upsets the other reviewers and the nominator, and too much of it can sour editors on FLC/music lists/whatever. Thanks! -- Pres N 01:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:ALBUM/SOURCE says that Sputnik staff/emeritus reviews are usable on articles and contributor/user reviews are not. I was checking reviews on Human (Death album) and noticed the sputnik review is written by a "user": link, which means this review should be removed from the article. However, checking through an archived version of the review I noticed that the writer was listed as a "staff" member in 2014 when this review was added to the article, link, so the addition would have been valid then according to our guidelines. Furthermore, I checked an older archived version and saw that the writer was listed as a "user" when the review was published in 2010: link. Also, note that the review content and score has completely changed between 2014 and now, I assume when this writer was delisted as a "staff" member, but the original publication date (2010) still remains on the revised review.
Two main problems arise from this example. Firstly, "Staff" reviews could be removed from articles when a the writer's position is changed to "user". Secondly, "user" reviews could be added to articles when a writer is promoted to a "staff" position even though the review was published when they were a regular user. The guideline should be revised to say that the writer must be a "staff" member on the date the review was published, not before or after. But then this leads to another problem: for every sputnik review we include on Wikipedia, we must check an archived version on the date of publication to see if they were listed as a "staff" member as most of their writers appear to have been non-professional users at one point. I'm not sure we will have archived version of every sputnik review listed here on the date of publication. And then we have the problem that reviews are being completely rewritten with new scores without the publication date being updated, adding further confusion.
Any thoughts on this? Has this issue been addressed before in a previous discussion I've missed? (Sidenote: Why is Sputnik even listed on WP:ALBUM/SOURCE as professional in the first place? Is it because the site is popular and snowball effect made it become a regular source on Wikipedia? Or can anyone point me somewhere that indicates they have professional editorial team rather than just paying forum members/contributors to write reviews and changing the writer's site status?) -- The1337gamer ( talk) 01:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Allmusic to be moved to Template:AllMusic. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 17:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Beauty and the Beast: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack to be moved to Beauty and the Beast (soundtrack). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for In Paradisum (Symfonia album) to be moved to In Paradisum (album). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Bloodwork (Texas in July album) to be moved to Bloodwork (album). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A number of songs on my watchlist recently were categorized into "199X songs" categories. I did not find this to be particularly helpful, especially as the songs were never notable in the slightest. (They were merged to the album at AfD and are likely not even helpful as redirects but alas.) Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects advises against this sort of non-particular use, and I can't find any community consensus apart from being told it'd be tedious and no outside response in 2010. My discussion with the editor is here. Should song redirects be categorized? czar ⨹ 12:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
R from modification}}
. But if there is no article about the song itself, and the redir points to an article about the album containing the song (such as
Columbia (Oasis song)), then it is quite in order to put the cats that are specific to the song onto the redirect. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 13:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You are entitled to an opinion, but you still need consensus to change. Since my last post I checked out other redirects that are also categorized, in those few minutes I found, Buster Baxter, LHR, Decay (Exemplar), Stephanie Rogers (Dallas)
Smosh, Rafi Fine, Dylan Hockley, Anthony Walker (murder victim), The Albert Anastasia EP. None of which I have ever edited, which does reinforce the point that if WP:REDCAT should be amended, then WP:ALBUMS or WP:SONGS is not the place to have the discussion. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 17:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
A Request for Comments about the use of album covers is currently on at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Cover dispute. It would be greatly appreciated to have more opinions on the matter. Lewismaster ( talk) 21:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there any purpose being served by the many Johnny Cash album articles being numbered ("third album", "27th album", etc). The existence of discography lists and the Johnny Cash template renders such things redundant and also it creates a situation where dozens of articles need to be revised now because someone counted The Lure of the Grand Canyon as a Cash album when it is not (he contributed a spoken-word track, that's all). So now every album thereafter has to be renumbered. The numbering is also being used for compilation albums, albums by other labels containing Cash recordings, etc. It's confusing and meaningless. Unless someone objects when time permits I'll follow WP:BOLD and strip all such references (or if someone else wants to do it, please feel free!). The numbering issue kicks in with All Aboard the Blue Train which was a compilation album, not a release of new material. 68.146.52.234 ( talk) 21:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Kill 'Em All (Metallica album) regarding how to present chart information in cases where an album has re-charted at various times over the years, usually when re-issued. Additional input would be greatly appreciated. Piriczki ( talk) 14:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 4#Debut album. I'm surprised that there isn't an article covering the concept of "debut albums." Is that something that could be added to Album at least? Tavix | Talk 14:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I want to ask whether a person needs to be re-introduced (full name, profession, linked) in the first section of an album article if he is already mentioned in the lead? Cliff Burton, Peter Mensch, Don Brautigam, etc. are mentioned in the lead of Master of Puppets and do they need to be mentioned with full name or just surname in the "Background and recording"? Cliff Burton's article implies so, but I'd like to hear other opinions.-- Retrohead ( talk) 12:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not listed at the top of the page, but it is listed in the charts section, so it was a single from the soundtrack.-- 108.239.228.112 ( talk) 20:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I've opened a move request for the above album: you can see my reasoning on the related talk page. As this album is rated as "top importance" on this WikiProject's importance scale, it would kind of make a mockery of that rating if nobody contributed to the discussion. ;-) Please feel free to add your comments for or against the move. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
A controversy between myself and User:Esszet about the use of non-free multiple covers in music albums articles started while editing Shades of Deep Purple and was discussed in Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Cover dispute. With the contribution of other editors, what came out of the discussion was the lack of a clear rule for the use of covers in infobox and extra album cover templates. Template:Infobox album recites "An image of the official front cover of the original version of the album (or a reissue, if no original cover can be found) should be included at Cover". Assuming that with some research on the Internet more than 99% of original covers can be retrieved, I think that the words "official" and "original" need some clarification, because there are too many examples of random use of covers in the articles. Here are some criteria used in album articles which emerged from the discussion:
In my edits I always used the first criterion, often reversing the placement of covers selected with different standards, but this is not a universally accepted behavior. For example, Led Zeppelin and many Loudness discography articles should follow the first or third criterion, but sport the most popular covers instead. Out of Our Heads apparently follows the third criterion, Open Up and Say... Ahh! the first and second and so on. Wouldn't it be better to have only one standard for cover selection? I would really appreciate some input on the matter by other editors and maybe reach a consensus to better define the use of covers. Lewismaster ( talk) 07:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey everyone!
To be honest, I don't even know where to start to be as factual as simple matters of facts, but the only merit that really counts for an inclusion of any subject of interest into Wikipedia is general notability. So whatever criteria the four-point listing above suggests, I can agree with one and only, and the very last, actually (if that's what popularity stands for here, Esszet, to be clear). To explain:
I was trying to clarify the key reasons in favor of the most notable cover, not more national one or so as there is no such term, unless we talk about official anthems. All releases of any commercial single are equal to each other, they only deal with global restrictions due to various taxes rates which are a subject of individual local governments, not one nation[al]. So the only thing that could make also two single's covers of a song much different on that level, would occur if the song was to be sold either and solely in one concrete country, which is not the case, or duty-free (i.e. promotional) at least elsewhere; also out of the question.
Categorizing subjects based on nationalism would also discriminate all outsiders to win e.g. MTV, Emmy and/or Nobel Prize awards, simply because these themselves are neither American, Swedish, nor whoever (who cares?). They could be nominated, however in practice, there's NO way out they would what so ever get the winning spot eventually; period! Given that, what difference would make to these "misfits" to receive a nominating bid knowing they have to lose it in advance, and indefinitely? Please, tell me. In a more music-related environment, this model of behavior would also result in other controversial situations such as that, for a change, U.S. artists could NEVER be entitled to topping any international music chart for, basically, they wouldn't be native enough to achieve a status of foreign chart entries, regardless of their own sales figures in respective regions. Do you see now, what nonsense some of you are implying while so-locating national preferences? So I would recommed all to open their eyes finally world-wide-ly, because a nationality or country of origin does NOT matter at all. What does though, is notability as whole or such originality only — to my blessed knowledge. Thanks for attention. MiewEN ( talk) 21:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I used to assumed that having two cover arts is not that excessive. However, administrators like masem and some others like IndianBio have disagreed, so we must reluctantly use one. Regarding nationality, I usually prefer one that was physically available to a singer's original home country, like Australia or America. However, I may choose an edition from abroad under following special circumstances, especially for older releases:
That's what I've done. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I've discussed singles. Moving on to albums, usually one is enough. If another is necessary more than just decorative or apparent, perhaps I shall add it. Sometimes disagreements lead to just one cover art used. That's the case for Let It Loose (album). I uploaded one extra cover art, but it was removed as unnecessary and decorative. George Ho ( talk) 10:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Lewismaster — you are skipping steps. Based on my arguments, you need to define which release is the most notable first. So you'd might look at the worldwide charts for your number one and support the most notable, not a "temporal", "local" or "its author's favorite" as suggested point by point by the other(s) around for pretty much disputable reasons. Then you'll be very likely not keen on using multiple covers ever. If still so though, your second choice should be just second chart topper as any decision related to one subject may not be based on two different criteria; that makes sense, dude. MiewEN ( talk) 20:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
George Ho — regarding "Finally" issue, I suggest to nominate the only and UK cover for the work (used also across Europe), or else the release which reached the highest position on the official music charts as fully explained on the relevant talk page earlier. To explain further; either you or Hasteur, or both of you as it appears to me now, has moved the problem to another level, because I don't dispute using one cover only as a matter of fact. But you do, judging by your post-inclusion of additional cover in the meantime. Well then, better mind establishing a commentary for an extra non-free cover art as specified in the NFC guide, because I am not to assist you with that. That is solely your purpose, not mine. I'm OK with one cover art (based on notability as said, nothing else) and that's all I can offer. MiewEN ( talk) 20:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Lewismaster — Oh boy, you're drowning in technical details and fast. To make the story short. If you find difficult to cover a music work with sources related to the records charts, sales figures and/or else, then neither its cover is most likely much to general notability but a collector's as you said. This stuff has no column around, far less to ask for headlines; copy that. Anyway, if the first official cover option works for you, then you don't need any "multi" along and your problem's solved. Well, you guys sort out your goals for it doesn't seem you know what you really want. MiewEN ( talk) 18:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if the WikiProject is aware, but there's a discussion at
Template talk:Track listing#Grammar is not needed concerning {{
track listing}}
, specifically, whether the words "were" and "was" should be included in the template, so that the present text "All songs written and composed by X."/"All lyrics written by Y, all music composed by Z." would instead read "All songs were written and composed by X."/"All lyrics were written by Y, all music was composed by Z.". --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I've been browsing archive.org for some older sites to source reviews from. I've come across Playlouder and Dotmusic as notable sources? Thoughts? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Now, this is something that really bugs me: people adding genres to albums of which we have not even heard a teaser, let alone a single song, just "because all of that band/artist's music is tagged like that". I find this really unprofessional, as we should not assume "artistic inertia", particularly in a medium where style changes are far from unheard of. There are of course occasionally primary source claims of the style a particular album will take, but even that should be taken with a pinch of salt (if I had a record for every album claimed to be rock and roll or punk and that ended up being completely unlike them, I probably would have a much larger collection).
Case in point, The Book of Souls: while I don't expect for Maiden to suddenly release an album full of NWWesque collages and folk ditties, it is not outside the realm of possibilities that they'll end up doing something that's much closer to progressive metal or even power metal than straight up heavy metal (yes, I know the term also works as an umbrella for all metal, but it's a de facto particular style). 190.109.207.10 ( talk) 17:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi WP:Albums guys, I'm from WP:Pro Wrestling. We have several stubs of music albums on professional wrestling. I want to know how to prove their notability (or lack thereof, then delete them). The wrestling websites I frequent don't mention these music albums. Is there a standard list of music album or music album review websites which if a album fails to appear on those, then it's considered not notable?
Thank you very much and have a nice day. starship .paint ~ KO 06:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
RM discussion ongoing; make comments there. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of facelift is under discussion, see talk:facelift (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 04:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the table assessing articles by importance/quality on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment page, it's clear that it includes a lot of junk. The 1,284 albums listed as "N/A importance, stub class" seem to consist of formerly existing articles that have been AfD'd at some point, and now redirect to the article about the artist themselves. Is there no way of removing these articles from the categories and the table? I think a large number of the Low Importance albums could happily be AfD'd or redirected to a parent article: I'm willing to make a start on this task myself, although with tens of thousands of them it's going to take a very long time to work through them all.
I also think some of the importance ratings should be re-evaluated, particularly in the High Importance category – among the 20 albums categorised as "high importance, stub class", and with all due respect to the artists and their fans, I don't think anybody could seriously claim that Magia (Toque Profundo album), The Walking or Wired for Sound (among others) are albums of "high" importance. Am I able to reclassify them myself? I do believe that thoroughly re-evaluating the Top and High Importance albums, particularly down at the Start and Stub Class levels, would help to focus attention on the genuinely important albums where work should be prioritised, and help improve them. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
If an album article redirects to the artist the two main options are 1) remove project template and redirect the talkpage to the artist talkpage, and 2) change the project template class to "Redirect", and tag the talkpage with {{ talk page of redirect}}. Generally, if there has been no previous discussion on the talkpage a straightforward redirect would be appropriate. If there has been some discussion there needs to be a decision made as to if the discussion should be left in place and option 2 followed, or if the discussion should be archived on the talkpage of the artist page and option 1 used. That decision can come down to common sense; though if in doubt ask for a second opinion.
As regards A/2 - that album is clearly not notable, so I have redirected it to the artist. For an album to be considered notable, it needs some non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Mere listing is regarded as not significant enough. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
While we are talking about importance, I see there are ~35,000 stub-class and ~13,000 start-class albums currently without importance ratings. While it wouldn't be perfect, does anyone think it worthwhile to request that a bot rates all of these as 'low importance'? Something from Category:Autoassessment bots could easily do this, and it would tidy up the table a little bit. It's a huge assumption to rate them all as low importance, of course, but any contentious ratings could quickly be reassessed by humans. What does everyone else think? — sparklism hey! 15:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
User Bogglenose123 has for some reason taken it upon themselves to create Get Weird (album) when Get Weird already exists – it appears the text for the two versions is identical, and the sole difference between them is the addition of the alternative cover for the deluxe edition of the album. What's the correct solution for this... copying the extra album cover to Get Weird and then placing a redirect on the newly created article? (As there are no other articles titled Get Weird, the version with the "album" disambiguator should be the one to go.) And if this is the correct solution, is there somebody able to do this for me please, as redirects are not my strong point? 00:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Richard3120 ( talk)
I often run into this site when searching for album reviews. Even though it's listed as an unreliable source at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, it never seems that a consensus was ever established whether it's reliable or not, not even from the thread that was linked there. So, should this be clarified to mean only the user reviews are unreliable? I noticed several albums on there are reviewed by " UG Team", a group of staff users from the site. Kokoro20 ( talk) 04:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Boy Cried Wolf is under discussion, see talk:Boy Cried Wolf (album) -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 05:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
A summary of a Featured Article tagged by this wikiproject will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank ( push to talk) 13:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Can some one point me to any discussion on Wilson & Alroy's record review site as a source or give the results of any discussion on if it is considered acceptable? Site is at: http://www.warr.org/cgi-bin/randompickpan2.cgi Thanks! Airproofing ( talk) 03:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI, since I've seen this book incorporated often for scores in the ratings template but credited erroneously as Spin, I created Spin Alternative Record Guide yesterday, so feel encouraged to use it and link it properly. Similar to The Rolling Stone Album Guide rather than Rolling Stone. Dan56 ( talk) 05:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I could've sworn I'd seen Goldmine in the list of sources in years gone by … Does anyone object to its inclusion? I've got a couple of old print issues in my collection: very thorough in its style for discographies, from what I can see; reporting seems dry and concise, much like Billboard of old. Contributors, going back decades, include Dave Thompson, Gillian G. Gaar and Harvey Kubernik. (Those are the ones I've heard of, anyway.) Some album reviews are available online, although it seems the star rating doesn't always appear there. Any thoughts? JG66 ( talk) 16:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Interested editors are invited to discuss here. Chase ( talk | contributions) 20:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Ongoing move discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I have opened a peer review for the article List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States. I am looking for input from anyone who has experience with working on list of best-selling albums or singles. Thanks! Erick ( talk) 16:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The usage and topic of Peace Pipe is under discussion, see talk:Peace pipe (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 04:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The usage, naming and primary topic of Stratospheric is under discussion, see talk:Stratospheric -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 11:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Venting is under discussion, see talk:Venting (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 05:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Live in America (The Babys album) was, according to its article, released in 2008 on some indie label. However, it says right at the top of the same article that it was originally released in 2001 by EMI as Valentine Babys. I was able to verify that. It would make sense to redo the article to reflect the original release date and title, and just add in the re-release info as is usual (and easy in this case, as nothing was added).
However, I haven't really moved heavily linked articles like this before, so I just wanted to run down a list and have someone look at it to make sure I didn't miss anything in my tasklist before I do it. It's in no particular order other than not moving the article until last.
Should that cover everything? MSJapan ( talk) 17:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Judging from dates, the group was also attempting to peak as musical tastes were shifting. MSJapan ( talk) 20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I have a question about release dates. A lot of albums are made available for online streaming a little while before the official commercial release. Should the date they're made available for streaming be counted as the release date or should it be the commercial release date? Littlecarmen ( talk) 14:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Could we include Time, The Plain Dealer, The Austin Chronicle, The Sydney Morning Herald, Entertainment.ie on the WP:ALBUM/SOURCES page or have they been excluded on purpose? Cool Marc 06:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Need a quick opinion on the reliablity of this source that I've seen added recently: [4] It appears to be a blog from their about page that has got some media press, but I'm not sure if we should count it as a reliable source. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 16:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Earthh:@ Nerdtrap: Re this, this and this. We discussed the issue with Dustblower, in fact, a while back. I know there was some talk then about standardising all, but regardless of that, DB did concede that the disc symbols he introduced should go. Not long after that PopMatters (another source we discussed) changed their ratings from discs to stars, a redesign that affected all of the site's previous reviews also, which took away part of the problem, I guess. Anyway, it would appear that yes, the alternative/disc symbols should go, but rather than stars, they should now have numerals. JG66 ( talk) 14:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The Category:Albums by gold certification, and related subcategories, have been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 01:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I proposed a merger of two articles. Comment there. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Does anybody mind checking grammar in this article I created? ( Graal (album)). I'm not a native speaker and I'm afraid that I might've made some mistakes Tashi Talk to me 18:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)