![]() | 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Considering the nature of multiple opinions for genres combining into a single solution in many user-contributed sources for genres (such as RateYourMusic), why are they considered an "unreliable" source while newspapers featuring a single opinion from a so-called professional are?-- F-22 Raptör Aces High♠ 18:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You truly underestimate user-contributed sources. If you had gone to any Nirvana album over at RateYourMusic voting in East-Coast Hip-Hop, not only would you quickly get voted against, but there's a report feature that when reviewed, you wouldn't be allowed to vote genres ever again there. RateYourMusic also has a strict line dealing with multiple accounts, that you would end up losing all of them if the abuse is obvious. RateYourMusic trusts its users that you can classify artists by influences or "secondary genres." Some of the people I meant over there, elaborate on pitches, moods, undertones of music that in my opinion, have knowledge of music far superior to that of any mainstream music critic out there. I assure you that after spending time there, I found much less inaccuracies there than Wikipedia and I think many people outside Wikipedia would agree with me. Even sites like Encyclopaedia Metallum have a serious and motivated nature towards music despite being user-contributed.
As for your comment on the denominations of metal, that's where subjectivity truly is subjectivity. I consider Kamelot mainly a power metal band. Some people consider them progressive metal but I'm not going to flip off the handle over that because I acknowledge that Kamelot DOES have certain progressive elements. However, I completely trust that no band is going to be classified under 20 metal subgenres, but if it ever comes to this, what is hard to just simply call them a metal band? Frank Zappa's music is all over the place. He plays psychedelic rock, progressive rock, jam rock, jazz-fusion, but he's simply called a rock musician or even just a composer (even on Wikipedia). Even his genre table isn't cluttered with subgenre after subgenre.-- F-22 Raptör Aces High♠ 23:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
But it's okay if critics push their opinion, despite how way off they are. Ooookay.-- F-22 Raptör Aces High♠ 19:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I have no interest in discussing this any further. I'm stating why I think my point of view is viable and why I think Wikipedia's bureaucratic way of prioritizing data is currently broken.-- F-22 Raptör Aces High♠ 01:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
A rewrite of {{ Infobox artist discography}} is being proposed. Your comments are invited at Template_talk:Infobox_artist_discography#Style_violations. RockMagnetist( talk) 03:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
An IP has provided a translation for the track listing for Romance (Luis Miguel album), but I need to know if such translations require a reliable source or if they're fine on their own. See Mi Tierra which provided official translations on the album booklet. Thanks, Erick ( talk) 17:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
There's an ongoing a discussion on the genres of The Next Day article on Talk:The Next Day. Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 22:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Should upcoming albums be added to the discography page of an artist/band? This relates to the David Bowie discography page and his upcoming album that has its own article. I'm assuming that a named future album (with sources) should be included? Also ping @ Mrmoustache14: for thoughts. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Please give me examples of "Critical Commentary" as used on wikipedia which would allow album images to be used on a page. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarembo ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's take these 3 well known artists as instances as they have been covered many times: Bob Dylan, Prince (musician) and David Bowie.
When they are covered by another act on an album , do we have to include in the credits : possibility 1) real name [Bob Dylan|Robert Allen Zimmerman], [Prince (musician)|Roger Nelson] , [David Bowie|David Robert Jones] or possibility 2) stage name Bob Dylan, Prince, David Bowie.
Certain users want that only their real name is mentioned. I don't share this point of view. If the title of a biography is a stage name, then we have to use the stage name on every Wikipedia article. Woovee ( talk) 23:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I have created a new portal at Portal:Halo and nominated it for featured portal status at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Halo. Comments will be much appreciated. Thank you. sst✈ discuss 07:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music charts articles to territory and format rather than official name, so Swedish music charts rather than Sverigetopplistan, etc. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#National Albums/Music Charts. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thrash Hits is currently on the list of unreliable publications. The two discussions ( here and here), though, to me seem highly inadequate. The site was rejected for 2 reasons that I see: 1. Not reputable and 2. Self-published. Point 2 is false - it isn't (or wasn't, since the site is going defunct) just one person publishing on a blog. Yes, it had only two writers/editors to manage most of the content, but the size of a staff doesn't inherently disqualify a publication, and publications often feature work produced by their editors and publishers. Going through the site, and through mentions elsewhere, there was editorial oversight, and their were other content writers. So, I think the real point here is reputation. The main contributors to Thrash Hits have collaborated with (and this might not be exhaustive: The BBC ( here, here, and here), Drowned in Sound, The Guardian, and Clash. In addition, Thrash Hits has been referenced in Metal Injection, AZ Central, The Belfast Telegraph, and The Guardian, and that's just a brief smattering of references I found in a quick g-hits search. Since this publication is a) run through an editorial process, published as a separate entity from the writers themselves; and b) a significant publication; I therefore think that it should be moved from the unreliable source list to the reliable sources list.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Burial Ground is under discussion, see talk:Burial Ground (Grave album) -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 05:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Why is AllMusic listed in the "Online Only" section? The older print versions are found in many libraries, and this may discourage some editors from using the print version. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I initially made this request at Talk:List of number-one albums of 2015 (Australia), but was told it would be more appropriate here. I've also made it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#Australian chart list articles.
This is a request for all lists of Australian number-one singles and albums lists to get moved to the same style of title as U.S. and UK ones (i.e. "List of Australian Singles Chart number ones of (year)" and "List of Australian Albums Chart number ones of (year)"). I moved List of number-one albums of 2015 (Australia) myself and then moved it back, because I didn't initially realise that I'd be messing up the template. I realise that some rewriting of the template would have to be done but it's purely for clarity and consistency with the titling of UK and U.S. equivalent article titles. I know the chart hasn't always been called (nor is it technically currently called) the "Australian Albums Chart", but then again the UK Albums Chart is actually called the "Official Albums Chart" nowadays and yet we haven't changed that chart's respective article's titles, and that's partly because it might not instantly strike a reader as being a UK list. That's also the reason why I didn't propose moving to "List of ARIA Albums Chart number ones of 2015" - a reader may not realise that ARIA refers to the Australian charts. Unreal7 ( talk) 20:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Women in Music | |
---|---|
![]() |
![]()
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 15:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I was told it was French when I bought it. The writing on the label is certainly in that language. It has 17 songs instead of 16. On side one the last two tracks are Drive-In Saturday and Sorrow. Young Americans is cut from side two. After Diamond Dogs it has Beauty and the Beast, Breaking Glass, followed by Fame and the rest as listed. Perhaps the change has something to do with the popularity of certain singles over there. 24.124.54.36 ( talk) 09:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I have started a discussion regarding how Wikipedia should define singles. Please go here to discuss.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Would soundspheremag.com be considered a reliable source? Currently discussing whether to use this ( http://www.soundspheremag.com/reviews/album-review-we-are-harlot-we-are-harlot/) for the article We Are Harlot (album) but since it's not on the list I believed it to be unreliable, however since it wasn't under any listing I thought I should bring it up here. SilentDan ( talk) 15:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Members may wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Bias against notability of artists from early recordings. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Would AnitMusic be considered reliable? I've seen this used at a number of articles before, and I tried using it myself recently, only for source's reliability to be contested by another editor. Kokoro20 ( talk) 08:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to add that
Select has been added to the list of reliable sources. it was a published magazine from 1990 to 2000 in the in the United Kingdom. They generally rated things on a five-point scale from 1-5 with no half marks ever. I've started applying their regular square ratings that have been common via this code: . Thoughts?
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 06:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
AXS (ticket merchant), a ticket merchant website, is not an appropriate source for professional critiques on a creative work. 115.164.54.11 ( talk) 15:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedians!
I don't edit here, but I have a suggestion. I'm a big jazz fan, and I primarily look up jazz albums to see the personnel list. In my experience this is the main subject jazz fans bring up when discussing a jazz album. The identity of the individual side-musicians is very important because jazz is an improvised music and each individual musician makes a big difference to the album. I therefore think it would make sense to include a personnel field in the infobox for small-group jazz albums. I'm sorry I'm not implementing this myself. I just hope some of you find this suggestion useful.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.26.208 ( talk) 21:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I've just added Select to the list of online & print sources. I can't imagine there'd be any objection to this – it was a well-known EMAP title throughout the 1990s, particularly influential during the Britpop years. Not that our article does the magazine justice right now, but among its contributors, John Harris was editor there for a while, Alexis Petridis was a reviewer before moving on to The Guardian, Davids Cavanagh and Quantick went on to Uncut, and Roy Wilkinson is another familiar name – most recently with Record Collector, I think.
The discussion point is how we should render the block ratings that used to appear in the mag's album reviews. I've seen @ Andrzejbanas: adding a new(?) ratings template for albums with Select reviews. This issue is similar to what we were discussing here last year with regard to disc symbols for Fact, No Ripcord and PopMatters (who have since reverted to stars anyway), Ns for Now, Ks for Kerrang! etc. Also, the Select-style blocks are similar to the way Spin, Classic Rock and others present their album ratings. So I guess the question is: are we going with alternative symbols such as blocks, or just using numerals for all non-star/non-letter ratings?
I'll post a link to the previous discussion once I find it, but I think last time around we decided to go with numerals. It doesn't mean we have to now, necessarily. For me at least, it's the same concerns as before: consistency, and ensuring that any alt symbols don't dwarf the existing stars, letters and numerals (not that the blocks look too off on that point, admittedly). JG66 ( talk) 06:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to explain the strange order of discussion threads: I'd been busy writing the above but hadn't seen that, while I waffled away, Andrzejbanas had already posted something here on Select ratings. Here are links to the previous discussion(s) I was referring to: December 2014 and September 2015. JG66 ( talk) 07:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
On a related subject, some editors may have noticed that Holiday56 has been removing ratings from the ratings box which say "favourable", "average", etc. These are used widely across album articles and at first I was a bit nonplussed, but on reflection I believe he/she is correct to do this, because they aren't explicit ratings given by the reviewer, they are subjective interpretations by Wikipedia editors of the review, and therefore WP:NOR, so I support what Holiday56 is doing. Richard3120 ( talk) 14:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Either way, going back to the topic of non-star ratings; I'd rule out option 2 for the reasons already outlined by others above, and I've stated my case on a full-scale implementation of stars for everything not being a wholly accurate form of representation. At the very least using numerals would constitute being generic enough to represent any score expressed in a numerical scale, regardless of the image, so I'd say option 3 would be the best. Holiday56 ( talk) 16:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Per my above response, I'm proposing option 4: 4. Use an alternative rating system if it is highly prevalent across multiple publications (in particular, squares)-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
From the options given, I'd support 1 and 3. Whichever way ratings/scores are presented, it should be standardized. Having different shapes, colors and sizes in the ratings box is not useful for the reader, and gives unintended undue weight to the most conspicuous ones, e.g., here, here, and here. I'd use only letters and stars, or letters and numbers. If there aren't sufficient sources with ratings, then I find "favorable" and "unfavorable" to be useful, depending on the Metacritic scores. Lapadite ( talk) 00:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
This site as a relatively large crew, some either being former or current university students ( as seen here) and has been mentioned by the likes of musicradar.com.Would this be classed as a reliable source or does this evidence not suffice? - SilentDan ( talk) 20:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "like" in titles such as Fly Like an Eagle, " Smells Like Teen Spirit", and " Moves like Jagger". Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 16:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I was going to create a page on Max Richter's album recomposition of Vivaldi's The Four Seasons. However, I'm not sure what the title should be. The title described on the artist's wiki page in prose is "Recomposed by Max Richter: Vivaldi's Four Seasons" while other official pages list the title as "Recomposed By Max Richter: Vivaldi, The Four Seasons" or "Recomposed By Max Richter: Vivaldi: The Four Seasons" or even "Recomposed By Max Richter - Vivaldi: The Four Seasons." Which one is standard/relevant formatting for Wikipedia? Sorry if this is basic, I'm new here. Oneclicklogin ( talk) 02:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Could someone check if the article meets the criteria to be classified as b-class, especially grammatically and syntactically? I made it and gave it c-class, because I thought it was enough, but I see it might be even b-class according to the assessment site. If it is not even close to be b-class, please just leave a short note here :) Tashi Talk to me 13:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in joining the discussion at this RFC. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Back in the USSR album is requested to be renamed, see Talk:Choba B CCCP -- 70.51.46.39 ( talk) 07:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at the WP:External links noticeboard regarding miscrediting songwriters often found in external links to song lyrics on MetroLyrics. Please add your comments at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#MetroLyrics songwriters miscredits. — Ojorojo ( talk) 15:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to comment on a request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: should the artist name be included in the titles of articles about songs and albums when other songs or albums of the same name exist, but do not have standalone articles? Thanks. sst✈ 15:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I've seen this source used for reviews of many song articles, but I'm not quite sure if it's a quality source? Could someone please clarify? Here is a link for one their recent reviews. Thanks. Abi-Maria ( talk) 12:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Has this project ever organized a blitz/contest to tackle administrative tasks, such as reducing Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover or similar? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason the music reviews from the U.K broadsheet daily, The Times, are excluded from the list of RS ? Also is the U.K monthly megazine FHM an RS? Another one is the U.K monthly magazine Classic Rock. Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Also FYI, Classic Rock is already listed.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be very useful to have a list of foreign language music reliable sources, for articles on non-english albums. Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads-up that BBC 6 Music have made a batch of old episodes of the Classic Albums series available to listen to on their website at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00szltz/episodes/player – these are one-hour documentaries, originally broadcast on BBC Radio 1 in the late 80s/early 90s, on classic albums of the 1960s to 1980s, with a key member of the band discussing the album track by track, albeit not in any great depth... might be useful for editors working on those albums to pick up information about certain tracks and other bits and pieces. I'm thinking the likes of Ritchie333, JG66 and Dan56 among others may have an interest. They don't stay there for ever, though – Pet Sounds with commentary by Brian Wilson only has seven days left to run, for example, so pinging ilovetopaint. I can almost certainly get hold of the original broadcast dates if anybody needs them. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Toa Nidhiki05 found a site that has archives of most Billboard issues from 1938 until 2010.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to rehash the various cross-references I have put between the pages. I listed Body of Work at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 15 as maybe having a better retarget; Body of Work (album) I said could possibly move over; another user has now prodded that who is the same user who moved it over in if I recall correctly July 2015 (somewhere mid Jul 2015, the links you can follow from there) saying "WP:DABSONG may way for much more likely titles" (not "make way", not my typo), I have no idea but it seems odd to PROD something a day after it has come up at a discussion, even though it is not technically part of the RfD. I don't know if the album is noteworthy or not or don't care, but now we have four discussions going out of one user's redirects (there's another at Talk:Oeuvre (disambiguation) for my requested move which was put as a procedural close at RfD after this user's arguing about it being wrong forum--- this seems not so much forum chasing as forum escaping by this user to me, so please excuse me not giving the full story but I am sure you can follow it up from those two with all the links I have at both (histories and stuff).
The main thing is it wasn't listed here and either it is a notable album or it isn't. Si Trew ( talk) 22:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
In many physical albums there are text that describes who did what on the album (who wrote the lyrics, descibes performers, who mastered it et.c.) are those considered reliable sources or not? An editor claims that if a release is on Discogs then the liner notes are not reliable as Discogs is considered to not be reliable. // Liftarn ( talk) 07:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
See this discussion, which suggests a bot task that would auto-assess some articles for WikiProjects based on other WikiProject templates on the page. Please feel free to comment on the discussion. It would be helpful to know if your WikiProject would be interested in auto-assessment. ~ Rob Talk 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, i see that Romanza's infobox includes pop music under genre. is this right? the wikiarticle states pop music as "Pop music is a genre of popular music that originated in its modern form in the Western world during the 1950s and 1960s, deriving from rock and roll. The terms "popular music" and "pop music" are often used interchangeably, although the former describes all music that is popular (and can include any style)." Shouldn't Bocelli's albums be characterised as Popular music instead? just wondering..... Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Should the title for a soundtrack article be "<name of release> (soundtrack)" even if a more accurate, albeit longer title in the form of "<name of release>: Original <whatever> Soundtrack" exists? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack don't mention anything specific. Raykyogrou0 ( Talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Importance should be based on integrity to the encyclopedia, not necessarily based on cultural importance of the album. (Which is subjective)
64.134.101.30 ( talk) 13:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
On the
Latin music project importance scale, there has to be several sources by music critics that declare a recording as influential or essential Latin song for it to be high-importance. I shamefully copied was influenced by how the Christian music project also has their importance scale as well.
Erick (
talk) 17:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
It has been discussed at RSN in both its current name, MusicMight and former, Rockdetector. It appears to be user-generated, and claims that some content can be removed by the person who runs the site. Shall we add it to the sources to avoid? Its content spawns books, which I assume are reliable, but how do we judge the individual band pages? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The article Red (John Stevens album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Caeciliusinhorto (
talk) 13:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused on this, so I want to make sure, does "composer" refer to the songwriters or just the people who made the music? That's the only credit for the songs. I'm talking about Tini (Martina Stoessel album). – nyuszika7h ( talk) 10:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
|writer=
or the |music=
field?
nyuszika7h (
talk) 11:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Any feedback on whether
http://igloomag.com is a reliable source or worth adding to the list?
czar 13:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Here. It has been more than two weeks and I had little feedback, so I thought I would post a notice. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
If a music review/blog site is partnered with the Guardian, would that make it a reliable source for reviews and/or news? I'm asking because the Guardian partnered with Seoulbeats in 2013 [8] and want to make sure it's okay to use it. Random86 ( talk) 22:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Should Template:Certification Table Top have a column for the certification date? Some of the albums on the RIAA's list of top-selling albums have certifications that are 10 to 15 years, even 20 years old. Other popular albums haven't been certified since their initial shipments in the 1970s and 1980s. A date would give the reader a better sense of what the certification level represents. Piriczki ( talk) 13:09, 14 May 2016 (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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Considering the nature of multiple opinions for genres combining into a single solution in many user-contributed sources for genres (such as RateYourMusic), why are they considered an "unreliable" source while newspapers featuring a single opinion from a so-called professional are?-- F-22 Raptör Aces High♠ 18:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You truly underestimate user-contributed sources. If you had gone to any Nirvana album over at RateYourMusic voting in East-Coast Hip-Hop, not only would you quickly get voted against, but there's a report feature that when reviewed, you wouldn't be allowed to vote genres ever again there. RateYourMusic also has a strict line dealing with multiple accounts, that you would end up losing all of them if the abuse is obvious. RateYourMusic trusts its users that you can classify artists by influences or "secondary genres." Some of the people I meant over there, elaborate on pitches, moods, undertones of music that in my opinion, have knowledge of music far superior to that of any mainstream music critic out there. I assure you that after spending time there, I found much less inaccuracies there than Wikipedia and I think many people outside Wikipedia would agree with me. Even sites like Encyclopaedia Metallum have a serious and motivated nature towards music despite being user-contributed.
As for your comment on the denominations of metal, that's where subjectivity truly is subjectivity. I consider Kamelot mainly a power metal band. Some people consider them progressive metal but I'm not going to flip off the handle over that because I acknowledge that Kamelot DOES have certain progressive elements. However, I completely trust that no band is going to be classified under 20 metal subgenres, but if it ever comes to this, what is hard to just simply call them a metal band? Frank Zappa's music is all over the place. He plays psychedelic rock, progressive rock, jam rock, jazz-fusion, but he's simply called a rock musician or even just a composer (even on Wikipedia). Even his genre table isn't cluttered with subgenre after subgenre.-- F-22 Raptör Aces High♠ 23:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
But it's okay if critics push their opinion, despite how way off they are. Ooookay.-- F-22 Raptör Aces High♠ 19:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I have no interest in discussing this any further. I'm stating why I think my point of view is viable and why I think Wikipedia's bureaucratic way of prioritizing data is currently broken.-- F-22 Raptör Aces High♠ 01:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
A rewrite of {{ Infobox artist discography}} is being proposed. Your comments are invited at Template_talk:Infobox_artist_discography#Style_violations. RockMagnetist( talk) 03:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
An IP has provided a translation for the track listing for Romance (Luis Miguel album), but I need to know if such translations require a reliable source or if they're fine on their own. See Mi Tierra which provided official translations on the album booklet. Thanks, Erick ( talk) 17:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
There's an ongoing a discussion on the genres of The Next Day article on Talk:The Next Day. Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 22:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Should upcoming albums be added to the discography page of an artist/band? This relates to the David Bowie discography page and his upcoming album that has its own article. I'm assuming that a named future album (with sources) should be included? Also ping @ Mrmoustache14: for thoughts. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Please give me examples of "Critical Commentary" as used on wikipedia which would allow album images to be used on a page. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarembo ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's take these 3 well known artists as instances as they have been covered many times: Bob Dylan, Prince (musician) and David Bowie.
When they are covered by another act on an album , do we have to include in the credits : possibility 1) real name [Bob Dylan|Robert Allen Zimmerman], [Prince (musician)|Roger Nelson] , [David Bowie|David Robert Jones] or possibility 2) stage name Bob Dylan, Prince, David Bowie.
Certain users want that only their real name is mentioned. I don't share this point of view. If the title of a biography is a stage name, then we have to use the stage name on every Wikipedia article. Woovee ( talk) 23:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I have created a new portal at Portal:Halo and nominated it for featured portal status at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Halo. Comments will be much appreciated. Thank you. sst✈ discuss 07:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music charts articles to territory and format rather than official name, so Swedish music charts rather than Sverigetopplistan, etc. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#National Albums/Music Charts. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thrash Hits is currently on the list of unreliable publications. The two discussions ( here and here), though, to me seem highly inadequate. The site was rejected for 2 reasons that I see: 1. Not reputable and 2. Self-published. Point 2 is false - it isn't (or wasn't, since the site is going defunct) just one person publishing on a blog. Yes, it had only two writers/editors to manage most of the content, but the size of a staff doesn't inherently disqualify a publication, and publications often feature work produced by their editors and publishers. Going through the site, and through mentions elsewhere, there was editorial oversight, and their were other content writers. So, I think the real point here is reputation. The main contributors to Thrash Hits have collaborated with (and this might not be exhaustive: The BBC ( here, here, and here), Drowned in Sound, The Guardian, and Clash. In addition, Thrash Hits has been referenced in Metal Injection, AZ Central, The Belfast Telegraph, and The Guardian, and that's just a brief smattering of references I found in a quick g-hits search. Since this publication is a) run through an editorial process, published as a separate entity from the writers themselves; and b) a significant publication; I therefore think that it should be moved from the unreliable source list to the reliable sources list.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Burial Ground is under discussion, see talk:Burial Ground (Grave album) -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 05:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Why is AllMusic listed in the "Online Only" section? The older print versions are found in many libraries, and this may discourage some editors from using the print version. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I initially made this request at Talk:List of number-one albums of 2015 (Australia), but was told it would be more appropriate here. I've also made it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#Australian chart list articles.
This is a request for all lists of Australian number-one singles and albums lists to get moved to the same style of title as U.S. and UK ones (i.e. "List of Australian Singles Chart number ones of (year)" and "List of Australian Albums Chart number ones of (year)"). I moved List of number-one albums of 2015 (Australia) myself and then moved it back, because I didn't initially realise that I'd be messing up the template. I realise that some rewriting of the template would have to be done but it's purely for clarity and consistency with the titling of UK and U.S. equivalent article titles. I know the chart hasn't always been called (nor is it technically currently called) the "Australian Albums Chart", but then again the UK Albums Chart is actually called the "Official Albums Chart" nowadays and yet we haven't changed that chart's respective article's titles, and that's partly because it might not instantly strike a reader as being a UK list. That's also the reason why I didn't propose moving to "List of ARIA Albums Chart number ones of 2015" - a reader may not realise that ARIA refers to the Australian charts. Unreal7 ( talk) 20:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Women in Music | |
---|---|
![]() |
![]()
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 15:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I was told it was French when I bought it. The writing on the label is certainly in that language. It has 17 songs instead of 16. On side one the last two tracks are Drive-In Saturday and Sorrow. Young Americans is cut from side two. After Diamond Dogs it has Beauty and the Beast, Breaking Glass, followed by Fame and the rest as listed. Perhaps the change has something to do with the popularity of certain singles over there. 24.124.54.36 ( talk) 09:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I have started a discussion regarding how Wikipedia should define singles. Please go here to discuss.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Would soundspheremag.com be considered a reliable source? Currently discussing whether to use this ( http://www.soundspheremag.com/reviews/album-review-we-are-harlot-we-are-harlot/) for the article We Are Harlot (album) but since it's not on the list I believed it to be unreliable, however since it wasn't under any listing I thought I should bring it up here. SilentDan ( talk) 15:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Members may wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Bias against notability of artists from early recordings. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Would AnitMusic be considered reliable? I've seen this used at a number of articles before, and I tried using it myself recently, only for source's reliability to be contested by another editor. Kokoro20 ( talk) 08:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to add that
Select has been added to the list of reliable sources. it was a published magazine from 1990 to 2000 in the in the United Kingdom. They generally rated things on a five-point scale from 1-5 with no half marks ever. I've started applying their regular square ratings that have been common via this code: . Thoughts?
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 06:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
AXS (ticket merchant), a ticket merchant website, is not an appropriate source for professional critiques on a creative work. 115.164.54.11 ( talk) 15:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedians!
I don't edit here, but I have a suggestion. I'm a big jazz fan, and I primarily look up jazz albums to see the personnel list. In my experience this is the main subject jazz fans bring up when discussing a jazz album. The identity of the individual side-musicians is very important because jazz is an improvised music and each individual musician makes a big difference to the album. I therefore think it would make sense to include a personnel field in the infobox for small-group jazz albums. I'm sorry I'm not implementing this myself. I just hope some of you find this suggestion useful.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.26.208 ( talk) 21:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I've just added Select to the list of online & print sources. I can't imagine there'd be any objection to this – it was a well-known EMAP title throughout the 1990s, particularly influential during the Britpop years. Not that our article does the magazine justice right now, but among its contributors, John Harris was editor there for a while, Alexis Petridis was a reviewer before moving on to The Guardian, Davids Cavanagh and Quantick went on to Uncut, and Roy Wilkinson is another familiar name – most recently with Record Collector, I think.
The discussion point is how we should render the block ratings that used to appear in the mag's album reviews. I've seen @ Andrzejbanas: adding a new(?) ratings template for albums with Select reviews. This issue is similar to what we were discussing here last year with regard to disc symbols for Fact, No Ripcord and PopMatters (who have since reverted to stars anyway), Ns for Now, Ks for Kerrang! etc. Also, the Select-style blocks are similar to the way Spin, Classic Rock and others present their album ratings. So I guess the question is: are we going with alternative symbols such as blocks, or just using numerals for all non-star/non-letter ratings?
I'll post a link to the previous discussion once I find it, but I think last time around we decided to go with numerals. It doesn't mean we have to now, necessarily. For me at least, it's the same concerns as before: consistency, and ensuring that any alt symbols don't dwarf the existing stars, letters and numerals (not that the blocks look too off on that point, admittedly). JG66 ( talk) 06:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to explain the strange order of discussion threads: I'd been busy writing the above but hadn't seen that, while I waffled away, Andrzejbanas had already posted something here on Select ratings. Here are links to the previous discussion(s) I was referring to: December 2014 and September 2015. JG66 ( talk) 07:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
On a related subject, some editors may have noticed that Holiday56 has been removing ratings from the ratings box which say "favourable", "average", etc. These are used widely across album articles and at first I was a bit nonplussed, but on reflection I believe he/she is correct to do this, because they aren't explicit ratings given by the reviewer, they are subjective interpretations by Wikipedia editors of the review, and therefore WP:NOR, so I support what Holiday56 is doing. Richard3120 ( talk) 14:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Either way, going back to the topic of non-star ratings; I'd rule out option 2 for the reasons already outlined by others above, and I've stated my case on a full-scale implementation of stars for everything not being a wholly accurate form of representation. At the very least using numerals would constitute being generic enough to represent any score expressed in a numerical scale, regardless of the image, so I'd say option 3 would be the best. Holiday56 ( talk) 16:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Per my above response, I'm proposing option 4: 4. Use an alternative rating system if it is highly prevalent across multiple publications (in particular, squares)-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
From the options given, I'd support 1 and 3. Whichever way ratings/scores are presented, it should be standardized. Having different shapes, colors and sizes in the ratings box is not useful for the reader, and gives unintended undue weight to the most conspicuous ones, e.g., here, here, and here. I'd use only letters and stars, or letters and numbers. If there aren't sufficient sources with ratings, then I find "favorable" and "unfavorable" to be useful, depending on the Metacritic scores. Lapadite ( talk) 00:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
This site as a relatively large crew, some either being former or current university students ( as seen here) and has been mentioned by the likes of musicradar.com.Would this be classed as a reliable source or does this evidence not suffice? - SilentDan ( talk) 20:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "like" in titles such as Fly Like an Eagle, " Smells Like Teen Spirit", and " Moves like Jagger". Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 16:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I was going to create a page on Max Richter's album recomposition of Vivaldi's The Four Seasons. However, I'm not sure what the title should be. The title described on the artist's wiki page in prose is "Recomposed by Max Richter: Vivaldi's Four Seasons" while other official pages list the title as "Recomposed By Max Richter: Vivaldi, The Four Seasons" or "Recomposed By Max Richter: Vivaldi: The Four Seasons" or even "Recomposed By Max Richter - Vivaldi: The Four Seasons." Which one is standard/relevant formatting for Wikipedia? Sorry if this is basic, I'm new here. Oneclicklogin ( talk) 02:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Could someone check if the article meets the criteria to be classified as b-class, especially grammatically and syntactically? I made it and gave it c-class, because I thought it was enough, but I see it might be even b-class according to the assessment site. If it is not even close to be b-class, please just leave a short note here :) Tashi Talk to me 13:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in joining the discussion at this RFC. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Back in the USSR album is requested to be renamed, see Talk:Choba B CCCP -- 70.51.46.39 ( talk) 07:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at the WP:External links noticeboard regarding miscrediting songwriters often found in external links to song lyrics on MetroLyrics. Please add your comments at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#MetroLyrics songwriters miscredits. — Ojorojo ( talk) 15:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to comment on a request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: should the artist name be included in the titles of articles about songs and albums when other songs or albums of the same name exist, but do not have standalone articles? Thanks. sst✈ 15:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I've seen this source used for reviews of many song articles, but I'm not quite sure if it's a quality source? Could someone please clarify? Here is a link for one their recent reviews. Thanks. Abi-Maria ( talk) 12:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Has this project ever organized a blitz/contest to tackle administrative tasks, such as reducing Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover or similar? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason the music reviews from the U.K broadsheet daily, The Times, are excluded from the list of RS ? Also is the U.K monthly megazine FHM an RS? Another one is the U.K monthly magazine Classic Rock. Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Also FYI, Classic Rock is already listed.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be very useful to have a list of foreign language music reliable sources, for articles on non-english albums. Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads-up that BBC 6 Music have made a batch of old episodes of the Classic Albums series available to listen to on their website at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00szltz/episodes/player – these are one-hour documentaries, originally broadcast on BBC Radio 1 in the late 80s/early 90s, on classic albums of the 1960s to 1980s, with a key member of the band discussing the album track by track, albeit not in any great depth... might be useful for editors working on those albums to pick up information about certain tracks and other bits and pieces. I'm thinking the likes of Ritchie333, JG66 and Dan56 among others may have an interest. They don't stay there for ever, though – Pet Sounds with commentary by Brian Wilson only has seven days left to run, for example, so pinging ilovetopaint. I can almost certainly get hold of the original broadcast dates if anybody needs them. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Toa Nidhiki05 found a site that has archives of most Billboard issues from 1938 until 2010.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to rehash the various cross-references I have put between the pages. I listed Body of Work at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 15 as maybe having a better retarget; Body of Work (album) I said could possibly move over; another user has now prodded that who is the same user who moved it over in if I recall correctly July 2015 (somewhere mid Jul 2015, the links you can follow from there) saying "WP:DABSONG may way for much more likely titles" (not "make way", not my typo), I have no idea but it seems odd to PROD something a day after it has come up at a discussion, even though it is not technically part of the RfD. I don't know if the album is noteworthy or not or don't care, but now we have four discussions going out of one user's redirects (there's another at Talk:Oeuvre (disambiguation) for my requested move which was put as a procedural close at RfD after this user's arguing about it being wrong forum--- this seems not so much forum chasing as forum escaping by this user to me, so please excuse me not giving the full story but I am sure you can follow it up from those two with all the links I have at both (histories and stuff).
The main thing is it wasn't listed here and either it is a notable album or it isn't. Si Trew ( talk) 22:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
In many physical albums there are text that describes who did what on the album (who wrote the lyrics, descibes performers, who mastered it et.c.) are those considered reliable sources or not? An editor claims that if a release is on Discogs then the liner notes are not reliable as Discogs is considered to not be reliable. // Liftarn ( talk) 07:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
See this discussion, which suggests a bot task that would auto-assess some articles for WikiProjects based on other WikiProject templates on the page. Please feel free to comment on the discussion. It would be helpful to know if your WikiProject would be interested in auto-assessment. ~ Rob Talk 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, i see that Romanza's infobox includes pop music under genre. is this right? the wikiarticle states pop music as "Pop music is a genre of popular music that originated in its modern form in the Western world during the 1950s and 1960s, deriving from rock and roll. The terms "popular music" and "pop music" are often used interchangeably, although the former describes all music that is popular (and can include any style)." Shouldn't Bocelli's albums be characterised as Popular music instead? just wondering..... Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Should the title for a soundtrack article be "<name of release> (soundtrack)" even if a more accurate, albeit longer title in the form of "<name of release>: Original <whatever> Soundtrack" exists? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack don't mention anything specific. Raykyogrou0 ( Talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Importance should be based on integrity to the encyclopedia, not necessarily based on cultural importance of the album. (Which is subjective)
64.134.101.30 ( talk) 13:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
On the
Latin music project importance scale, there has to be several sources by music critics that declare a recording as influential or essential Latin song for it to be high-importance. I shamefully copied was influenced by how the Christian music project also has their importance scale as well.
Erick (
talk) 17:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
It has been discussed at RSN in both its current name, MusicMight and former, Rockdetector. It appears to be user-generated, and claims that some content can be removed by the person who runs the site. Shall we add it to the sources to avoid? Its content spawns books, which I assume are reliable, but how do we judge the individual band pages? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The article Red (John Stevens album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Caeciliusinhorto (
talk) 13:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused on this, so I want to make sure, does "composer" refer to the songwriters or just the people who made the music? That's the only credit for the songs. I'm talking about Tini (Martina Stoessel album). – nyuszika7h ( talk) 10:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
|writer=
or the |music=
field?
nyuszika7h (
talk) 11:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Any feedback on whether
http://igloomag.com is a reliable source or worth adding to the list?
czar 13:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Here. It has been more than two weeks and I had little feedback, so I thought I would post a notice. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
If a music review/blog site is partnered with the Guardian, would that make it a reliable source for reviews and/or news? I'm asking because the Guardian partnered with Seoulbeats in 2013 [8] and want to make sure it's okay to use it. Random86 ( talk) 22:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Should Template:Certification Table Top have a column for the certification date? Some of the albums on the RIAA's list of top-selling albums have certifications that are 10 to 15 years, even 20 years old. Other popular albums haven't been certified since their initial shipments in the 1970s and 1980s. A date would give the reader a better sense of what the certification level represents. Piriczki ( talk) 13:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)