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 50 | ← | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | → | Archive 60 |
Howdy!!
I originally posted this at Wikiproject Songs. I received a suggestion that this might be a better venue. So here goes nuffin....
Hiya, Wikipedians! I recently added references to Old Crow Medicine Show's new album 50 Years of Blonde on Blonde in the "covers" sections of the articles on the songs appearing on Dylan's original Blonde on Blonde album. Another editor has reverted several of these edits. I made revisions based on his comments but these changes were reverted also. I do not agree with - and, in at least one instance, do not understand the objections given. Rather than get into an edit war I decided to bring the issue here. The other editor initially objected that the references I had added were not notable. I felt that a band that is a Grammy award-winning member of the Grand Ole Opry and an album that has received national press coverage (Rolling Stone, The New Yorker) was at least as notable as the often obscure recordings already mentioned in these particular articles. The other party agreed with that observation, but then argued that the real reason for reverting was to avoid "endless lists of covers." Few, if any, of these articles mentioned more than a handful of covers - none were at risk of being overwhelmed by endless lists. And I felt that removing only a single entry, simply because it was the one most recently added, was highly arbitrary. Then the reason appeared to become that tribute albums are inherently not notable - another arbitrary decision - and I pointed out that many of the remaining entries were also for songs from tribute albums, some by major performers. And I was particularly confused by his citation of wikipedia policies that seemed to deal with the creation of stand-alone articles rather than additions to existing articles, as none of these edits had created a new, stand-alone article. This individual seemed to consider it to be a challenge or personal affront that I disagreed with him - this would be borne out by a review of our dialog on his talk page. His most recent response was to remove ALL mentions of cover versions in several of these articles - which seems to me to be based on spite rather than a desire for editorial consistency. In other words..."I'll show you...." If the determination is indeed that there should be NO mention of ANY cover versions of these songs, so be it - maybe that's better than arbitrary omissions. I'm completely in favor of consistency. But I personally think that that information adds to a reader's understanding of the song's cultural impact - and also that completely removing that information, rather than considering the addition of an item to the list, is a questionable decision. If you're going to remove entire sections from multiple articles, do it because it's the right editorial decision, NOT because you want to spite another editor. Thanks for your thoughts! PurpleChez ( talk) 19:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Are infobox chronologies like the "soundtrack chronologies" on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (soundtrack) appropriate? The infobox documentation states that chronology parameters should only be used for artists/composers. Jc86035 ( talk) 03:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on whether WP:PRIMARY content is appropriate as outlined at Talk:The Loudest Sound Ever Heard. Also, if you can help expand the article, that would be useful. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi all -- I'm excited to have fleshed out my first article here:
Seekers and Finders. I've done the initial work to make the article a stub, and I plan to expand it, but I have some questions about how to move forward:
- I did not originally create the article. Rather, it was an article that simply redirected to the artist page when searched. I then edited that redirect page. Is that a standard practice, or should I have created a new article and removed the simple redirect page? Relatedly, when I start typing the album name in search, both the original article show up and mine (with one saying "(album)" after its name). What can I do about that, so that only one entry shows up?
- I want to add the album cover. I read about fair use at
Template:Infobox_album, and I just want to verify that I have the correct understanding of how to do this. It sounds like I should download the image from the UI of Amazon.com (or similar), then upload it to Wikimedia Commons along with the templated rationale here:
Template:Non-free_use_rationale_album_cover.
- I did some searching to find the album personnel and studio information, and the only source I could find was the Allmusic page, which in turn does not cite anything:
http://www.allmusic.com/album/seekers-and-finders-mw0003065414/credits. Do you generally find Allmusic to be reliable?
- In suggestive search, I notice that many albums have subtext, e.g. "album by Gogol Bordello", under the album name. How do I get my article to do that?
- At the bottom of the album page, I've added an artist box (not sure exactly what these are called), by putting the artist name inside double curly braces. This new album whose page I've added, however, doesn't show up in the "Studio Albums" list inside that box. What can I do about that?
Thank you for your help.
Cloud atlas ( talk) 03:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm new on here. I'd like to contribute to some album articles, but the Talk pages direct me to this page: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums". I would like to, for example, add an executive producer credit and correct the Name in the Infobox on the following page Chill Out (John Lee Hooker album). Should I address such items here (on WikiProject Albums) or should I start discussions directly on the article Talk pages that I would like to contribute to? Thank you 2bImpeckable ( talk) 21:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the Redirect WikiProject talk page that could use input from this project, as it concerns albums/songs and is thus in your purview. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 19:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Don't Look Back (John Lee Hooker album)
The liner notes for the CD release (Shout Factory, cat no. 826663-10437) lists the producer credits as above.
Chill Out (John Lee Hooker album)
http://www.allmusic.com/album/chill-out-things-gonna-change-mw0000122219/credits
http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-healer-mw0000201557/credits
If the above points are agreeable, I will go ahead with these edits on the album articles. Thank you 2bImpeckable ( talk) 18:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Lucky (John Lee Hooker album) is one other article I'd like to address a couple of items.
Thanks. 2bImpeckable ( talk) 17:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
I proposed a merger of the Back to the Future sountrack article into the parent article, " Back to the Future" two weeks ago. I invite you to comment at Talk:Back to the Future#Merger proposal. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It's taken 9 months to get there, but finally Category:Pages using infobox album with unknown parameters is empty. There were 4500 articles containing template errors, leftover fields, defunct fields and made up fields; but they're now history, which is the main point. Thank you to whoever helped along the way, I could see the numbers change from time to time, but had no way of finding out who had fixed what. So you'll all be happy to know that I won't be flooding your Watchlist with edits... but... Doing these fixes has helped me spot a number of problems with the usage of the template on articles, with fields being re-purposed and information being crammed in one field when it should be split over two etc. but, they're a problem for later, first there are some errors still showing on the template error report that need manually fixing, then I'm going to re-scan all of my edits for the italics problem that surfaced during the edit run. After that I'll download a database dump and check how common the things I've spotted are. Thanks again to those that helped along the way. - X201 ( talk) 07:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I have opened an RfC regarding how a label's artists should be listed here. Any editor in this WikiProject is more than welcome to contribute. jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 02:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Would it be okay to consider http://youredm.com/ reliable for Electronic music articles? We've been using it on the Monstercat article and related articles without problem for a while. jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 00:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm new to here but I am really curious about one question: While browsing Wikipedia, I found quite a lot of music albums are rated with 0/5 stars on Allmusic (or any other aggregate music rating site),(e.g.: /info/en/?search=Signal_(album) ). But when I clicked into the album page on the rating site, turns out the album is actually not rated, therefore receiving a 0/5 score instead of because being a bad album. In such cases, shouldn't these albums be should be marked as unrated specifically, to prevent confusion about music quality of these albums?
138.19.25.129 ( talk) 17:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to place Heylin's dates on the track listing? Talk:The Philosopher's Stone (album)#RFC on recording dates. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Anyone able to provide some feedback on a discussion I'm having with another user at Talk:Monstercat#WP:OR Monstercat errors? I've already hatted an off-topic discussion in the thread which includes my attempts at getting back on track, but I don't know how else to respond other than what I've already argued. jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 16:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
A Nancy Ajram ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) fan has done a lot of editing to the BLP and associated articles. Some eyes would be appreciated. These are at AfD, and I would appreciate some input on notability.
Thanks. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I've added type "other" to infobox album because the other field was getting mixed up with blank fields. This has now created the question, what should it link to? Currently I've linked it to Timeline of audio formats as a placeholder. The question is, what article best represents the oddball formats that will fall under this? e.g Things that aren't EPs but at the same time not albums, or albums that are both live and studio at the same time. Suggestions please. - X201 ( talk) 18:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure quite how to do this, or if I'm even posting in the right place. Wikipedia has a large number of pages devoted to individual jazz LPs, and for the most part, they're invaluable. The information is detailed and accurate. But I have problems with the pages created for a number of albums made by John Coltrane in the late 1950s, and released for the most part in the early 1960s, for Prestige Records. The information isn't wrong, exactly, but its tone strikes me as unnecessarily snarky and dismissive. I'll refer to one entry, the one for the album Black Pearls. The entry begins "Black Pearls is an album credited to jazz musician John Coltrane..." Why "credited to"? Other entries on albums by other jazz artists just say "an album by..." "Credited to" implies that this is somehow not how the album should be credited, but the session log for the date quite clearly lists it as a John Coltrane session. It goes on to say "It is assembled from the results of a single recording session," but you don't assemble something from a single recording session -- it was the recording session. And finally, at the end of each of these entries on Coltrane's Prestige albums, the writer adds "Prestige used unissued recordings to create new marketable albums without Coltrane's input or approval," as though this were some sort of unusual or high-handed thing, when in fact it's standard. Coltrane went into the studio, cut an album's worth of material, and Prestige released it on a schedule that they thought best. I don't want to just go ahead and rewrite all these, and get into some sort of jazz feud, but I thought it was worth bringing up. Tad Richards ( talk) 14:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Tad Richards
Certification definitions in Canada changed around the middle of the year. Eurohunter ( talk) 08:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Say, if anyone is able to find enough resources related to any of these redirects I created to turn them into articles, please do so. For example, I know Harry Shotta is notable for beating Eminem's record for most words spoken in a song, but if it fails WP:BLP1E, I'm not against leaving it a redirect. Please also see the following section, which is related.
And yes, I know some redirects were titles of previously deleted articles, but is it better to have them as redirects to more related topics rather than making articles out of them? jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 03:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
About 3 months ago, I withdrew an AfD I opened for Notaker, an article created out of a COI from a previous redirect, as sources emerged to keep the page up. The user who created the article from the redirect has since been indeffed for username policy violations. Several months later, one of the websites used a source in the article, Your EDM, was deemed as potentially unreliable by Sergecross73 at WP:RSN. Looking at the article again today, I'm still concerned about notability on this musician, and was hoping someone would open another AFD discussion for the article. Even I don't see any of the listed reliable sources talking about him. jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 22:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The article I created for Ships in the Night (Vicki Lawrence album) by Vicki Lawrence should not be deleted, so I have to remind you that the article for that album should not be for deletion. Thank you.
Signed ~~88ui7~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88ui7 ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I have taken out the collapsed
option from {{
Track listing}} due to
accessibility concerns. Note that the vast majority of instances are collapsing one to three bonus tracks (e.g. one of hundreds of examples:
Metallica_(album)#Track_listing). That is not really saving anyone much in the way of scrolling and creating a lot of pointless clicks to expand. In a minority of cases, the track listing template was hiding something like a second disc of a live show or even sometimes the entire contents of a track listing for a box set--I'm not sure what the purpose is of even having a list if you don't display it. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
20:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
FYI, while I was creating an article and looking up chart positions, I noticed that, unless I'm doing something wrong or its temporary, Billboard has redone its website, breaking the links to the sources that verify charting positions for albums/songs.
The links still sort of work - I mean, for example, checking the ref that once verified that Breaking Benjamin's Dark Before Dawn topped the Billboard 200, is supposed to link to a page that now look like this, and yet, now just links to the generic band page at Billboard like http://www.billboard.com/music/breaking-benjamin - which can still indirectly get you to the charting position, but now it takes some research/clicks instead.
So, not catastrohpic, but...it leaves a ton of sources that technically need fixing. I'm not necessarily requesting such a monumental task, just making sure that people are aware of the situation. I figured it could affect people's efforts to determine notability, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I started a discussion a while back proposing we stop categorizing all albums by artists by genre. There was some support for this, but now I'm having trouble finding the discussion in the archives. I keep finding artist categories that aren't quite right, so I'd like to revisit this discussion and submit a formal request for comment. Does any project member recall this discussion and know where it lives? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Somebody has raised the point that this project should be notified of an ongoing CfD/CfR discussion whether the following and similar album related cats should be container cats. English Language albums -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated Segundo Romance as a [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Segundo Romance/archive1 |featured article candidate]]. Please feel free to drop any feedback about the article on the FAC. Thanks in advance! Erick ( talk) 15:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 15:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Just curious, as I'm not very familiar with the website, and probably for good reason, they closed down in 2007, a year before I even joined Wikipedia, but has this one every been very closely evaluated for reliability? Or did it just kinda get grandfathered in from the lax early days of Wikipedia?
For background, I was cleaning up the Seether article page a little bit, and was checking through the sources for the genre nu metal to see if they were legit, as that's not really a claim I've commonly seen made for the band, and looking over the actual article, they also made the rather dubious claim that Hoobastank's love ballad " The Reason" was also nu metal. I then came to WP:MUSIC/SOURCES to see that it was on the RS list.
Now, usually I wouldn't challenge a source's reliability on something like this, but since like I said, my usual ways of evaluating source reliability (looking over to see if they have an established staff, staff credentials, editorial policies, etc) were coming up empty since most attempts to look around the website resulted in broken links to error pages.
Again, I don't mean for this to be a WP:GENREWARRING argument or anything like that- if its considered reliable, so be it. But in my experience, that source had a number of claims that I haven't commonly seen replicated elsewhere, so I thought I'd check.
Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I disagree that Discogs and 45cat.com should be sources to avoid. Sure have Allmusic as a first priority reference, but when a release is not available on AllMusic, then these other sources should be able to be used when an editor is able to determine that the reference is indisputable. When compiling discographies of older artists and artists of previous generations, there are many releases that are not on AllMusic, particularly rarer releases. This leaves a gap in the ability to add an online reference to these items. I have found that many of the items missing from AllMusic are documented well in Discogs and/or 45cat.com with images of the front and back cover and pictures of the vinyl labels for both sides. Even if you disregard the usually good track-listing, the pictures don't lie. So I think this guideline needs to be reviewed. I think it would be better to have a guideline to allow use of references from Discogs and 45cat.com where that reference meets a standard of documentation so as documentation matches the details of the pictured items. As long as it meets that standard, it is indisputable and I think it should qualify as suitable for use as a reference. AusChartMan ( talk) 15:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite AV media notes}}
: CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) (
link)Can you put Forbes.com to WP:ALBUMAVOID? Because acccording to RS noticeboard, Tenebrae says "Forbes "contributors" are not Forbes editorial staff, but suppliers of user-generated content." (Forbes is just a printed magazine btw) 115.164.94.36 ( talk) 14:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Following on from TheAmazingPeanuts post above, I was taking a look at the current list of reliable sources, and I wanted to add some. Most are not contentious, I think, but as ever, I should get consensus first.
Not contentious:
Possibly contentious:
I have nominated List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States as a featured list candidate. I'd greatly appreciate any feedback! Erick ( talk) 17:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
If anyone is willing to provide feedback on the matter, the discussion is here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I've opened this subsection up for Sergecross73 once he determines the reliability of this website as a source, as he said he'd do in the AfD. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Do HotNewHipHop [2] and Salute Magazine [3] count as reliable sources because they do published news, album reviews and other things. HotNewHipHop have been used in multiple hip hop related articles as an reliable source, but it's not on WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. Are these sources are reliable or not? TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 00:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I would more-or-less agree with Sergecross73. I was going to disagree with him on HotNewHipHop but then I started looking at content. First, artist profiles. I picked a letter at random and an artist whose name I recognize that was near the top: https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/LilWayne/profile/ I then looked up that same artist at AllMusic: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/lil-wayne-mn0000272689/biography I noticed two things immediately: the AllMusic bio is vastly larger than the HotNewHipHop bio, and it also has a byline. I also like the performer's image better in the latter, but that doesn't help it meet RS. So their bios fail RS. I notice that there is a news tab on the profile, and it appears that the news entries do meet RS. They have a byline and they seem to link to a page listing other staff entries. That's quite common. The reviews are written by the same staff as the ones who write the news. I would argue that they're reliable as well. But now you have general staff writers rather than reviewers, and that throws the whole thing into question. RSN usually addresses things in this way as well. In other words, what do you want to use from the site and where? The other site fails at the level of having a page that clearly identifies staff and its editorial policy. We can't assume it's a RS. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/LadyGaGa/profile/
A change to the MetroLyrics entry at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES#List of unreliable sources (with link to relevant discussion) is proposed at WT:WikiProject Songs#MetroLyrics. Please add your comments there. — Ojorojo ( talk) 00:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Janet Jackson (album) is undergoing a GA reassessment. Most problems have been tackled, however, the article does not meet criteria 3a, as it does not address the main aspects of the topic - there is almost nothing about production of the album, and little about critical reception on release. The reassessment is on hold for seven days to allow time to build the article. SilkTork ( talk) 01:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I recently used a Daily Mail source in the reception section of this album, but it was removed with a WP:ALBUMAVOID rationale. Thing is, that section says nothing about the Daily Mail being inappropriate. I'm no fan of that particular newspaper, but have always understood there are circumstances in which its use is acceptable, such as in the case of citing an album review. What do others think? It its use ok here, or should it be avoided? This is Paul ( talk) 18:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Albums
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 13:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned about what I interpret as confusion ove over album's background section. A great example is the 1989 (Taylor Swift album) article, where the background sections seems almost entirely composed of information about her previous album and promotion of it. I also saw similar themes on other (mostly pop albums). Really these sections should be about what led to the development of the album more so than what they did previously. Any ideas how to curb this practice? -- Deathawk ( talk) 23:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. I would love to get some more input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalog numbering systems for single records. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Should a limited pressing of a Record Store Day release be considered a single from an album for purposes of the album infobox? To me, this would seem to be a type of release that doesn't constitute an official single since it's only to promote a merchandising holiday and is only available in limited quantities. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 ( talk • contributions) 22:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Specifically, I'm thinking about " The Blackout" by U2. It was released as a limited edition Record Store Day single (the album version of the song on side A, and a remix on side B). Would that make it a single from Songs of Experience? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 ( talk • contributions) 02:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I started the discussion at Talk:Zodiac (film)#Notability of Zodiac (soundtrack), where I invite you to discuss Zodiac (soundtrack). George Ho ( talk) 10:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Albums,
Unregistered editors cannot create articles on Wikipedia, but they can use the articles for creation process to submit drafts that registered editors can either accept and publish or decline. WikiProject Articles for creation is looking for experienced editors who want to partake in this peer review process. If you have what it takes to get involved, then please take a look at the reviewing instructions. To discuss specific AfC reviews, do so freely on the designated talk page.
There is currently a backlog of over 3100 drafts (0 very old).
If you know an editor who may be willing to help out, please use the template you are currently reading {{subst:
WPAFCInvite}}
to draw attention to this WikiProject. Many hands make light work!
Editors willing to review a variety of drafts are especially welcome. If you're interested only in reviewing certain topics, that still helps. At least 11 pending drafts are about albums (are in the intersection of Category:Pending AfC submissions and Category:Draft-Class Album articles). Over 2000 pending drafts have not yet had a WikiProject added, so more may be in the scope of this WikiProject. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 00:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Links to pending album drafts:
Title | Page ID | Namespace | Size (bytes) | Last change |
---|---|---|---|---|
Girl Talk | 53686120 | 118 | 2440 | 20171230044647 |
Midnight Music in London | 54145818 | 118 | 3735 | 20171230041941 |
Acoustic Highway | 55362865 | 118 | 5162 | 20171230042401 |
Play Dead | 55498976 | 118 | 3886 | 20171230041805 |
Entertainment | 55583433 | 118 | 4118 | 20171230040752 |
Yellow | 55836410 | 118 | 4772 | 20171230041701 |
Subversive Paradigm | 55894182 | 118 | 2705 | 20171230042344 |
Feel Infinite - Album | 55914619 | 118 | 4056 | 20171230042708 |
My Life | 55959025 | 118 | 22823 | 20171230043853 |
My Zone | 56075323 | 118 | 4058 | 20171230045545 |
-- Worldbruce ( talk) 06:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated Amarte Es un Placer (album) for FA. I would appreciate any comments in the FAC. Thanks! Erick ( talk) 15:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm reviewing Marilyn Manson (band) for GA, here, and I asked the nominator if there was a list of reliable music sources. They pointed me at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, which is very helpful. However, since I am not allowed to just take a WikiProject's word for it that a source is reliable, can I suggest that you add a "link to discussion" column to the "reliable sources" table that shows any discussion of reliability. This obviously isn't necessary for the ones that wouldn't be questioned in the first place, such as Entertainment Weekly or NME, but it would be helpful for sources that aren't immediately obviously reliable. For example, metalsucks.net is on the list as reliable; if I could see how that was established it would make reviewing a lot quicker.
The full list of sources I asked about, in case anyone can shed light on any of them, is:
Thanks for any input on any of these. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Serious commment – have we ever come to a definitive conclusion about acharts, mentioned by Mike Christie above? I've been looking at some archive discussions, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 8#acharts.us, and the opinion seems to that some of its charts are reliable, but others aren't. Richard3120 ( talk) 18:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all above for this discussion; it's very helpful. For the GA review I'm doing I've decided to go ahead and accept the ones listed by Sergecross73 as reliable, and have asked the nominator to remove the others. As those of you who nominate at FAC will already know, a WikiProject's opinion is useful information at FAC but isn't definitive, so for the reliable ones, including a link to a discussion in your table of reliable sources would really be helpful. Thanks again. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Since I got helpful answers to my question (above), I'm back to ask about more sources from another GA review. The article is chillwave and the review is here. Can anyone comment on the reliability of these two?
Thanks for any help. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
( ←) The script is progressing nicely, but what you are discussing here is the most awkward thing of all to do in your wishlist, I think. The only way I would know how to do it would be hardcoding a list (probably a large one) in the script and spinning through it, looking for a match to journal or website name. That is very very klunky; untenable from a maintenance point of view. Someone better than I knows how to pass info like this around.... now that I think about it, perhaps/probably that item should be done in an entirely different script or by a bot...? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.
Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 ( talk) 19:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I've started RFCs on a couple of issues that have come up recently in the music related areas of Wikipedia. If anyone is interested in chiming in, your input would be much appreciated. The two discussions are:
Any input would be appreciated, so we can come to a consensus on how to handle these situations. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Looking through the archives, there doesn't seem to ever have been any consensus to add it in the first place. Most discussions were about removing it, questioning it, or using it a reference point for other sources. It's hard to check now, since it was shutdown and went offline in 2016, but it sound like they did both staff and user reviews, but there doesn't seem to have been much in the way of credentials in being a staff member.
I don't know if it's worth adding to the unreliable source, as its no longer usable, but I personally support removing it from the reliable list. I don't think we should be recommending its use. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Thought Yeepsi might want to take a look at this - they use this site as a source frequently. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 16:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Loudwire is a website used pretty heavily used in the hard rock/metal areas of Wikipedia. I definitely think they are reliable, but there wasn't much in the past of a centralized discussion on it, so I wanted to document a discussion here.
I support their use, and haven't seen any discussions opposing their use historically. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I swear one of their editors also worked for MTV Online at one point but I don't remember which one it was... dannymusiceditor Speak up! 18:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
HM Magazine is another one that I support its use, but it hasn't seen a ton of discussion so I figured I'd post it here.
Like Loudwire, I support their use, and have seen any discussions opposing it historically either. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree the website should be labeled as an unreliable source in Wikipedia, since it still being used in review aggregators like, Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic?. It even got its own profile page in Metacritic right here [10]. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 00:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
At this GAN I asked about Steve Rosen, who is cited at that article for some ultimate-guitar.com pages. The WP Albums sources page says "Only cite articles written by "UG Team" or any members within its group."; the GA nominator pointed out that Rosen is described as a UG interviewer, and provided links. I'm not familiar with the site. Can anyone here advise if Rosen qualifies as a reliable source? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Right now it only lists UK chart performance. (I'm not skilled at those chart tables so I'm letting people here and elsewhere know.) Softlavender ( talk) 13:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Arrow (album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Arrow (album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mungo Kitsch ( talk) 20:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to ask editors involved in this project about citing the Encyclopedia of Popular Music. Specifically, I wanted to know whether you should include the page numbers in citations for reviews from it based on this version (i.e. the ones included on Google Books but that are not found on the book pages themselves). Every Morning (there's a halo...) 04:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello all. Due to some recent requests, and my own increased interest in music editing in recent years, I've decided to try to cleanup and improve our source list a bit. There's nothing wrong with it, and I'm not planning on doing any major deconstruction or anything, just some improvement stuff. I've worked a lot at the video game WikiProject's equivalent list and there's things I think we could do better here.
I'll occasionally start new discussions as I find things I'd like input on. If you object to my changes, feel free to start up a section below too, and we can hash it out.
Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Obviously from my point of view there was my post Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 55#To add to sources list, but I take it you're more interested in current online sources. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Alternative Addiction. I almost didn't bother bringing it up, as much as I've seen it be used on Wikipedia. But the archives have 0 discussions about it, and my cursory glances didn't come up with any of the stuff I wanted to see.
Am I missing something here? Anyone else more knowledgeable with them? I don't have much of an argument for keeping it on the reliable sources list so far... Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 31 January 2018 (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 50 | ← | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | → | Archive 60 |
Howdy!!
I originally posted this at Wikiproject Songs. I received a suggestion that this might be a better venue. So here goes nuffin....
Hiya, Wikipedians! I recently added references to Old Crow Medicine Show's new album 50 Years of Blonde on Blonde in the "covers" sections of the articles on the songs appearing on Dylan's original Blonde on Blonde album. Another editor has reverted several of these edits. I made revisions based on his comments but these changes were reverted also. I do not agree with - and, in at least one instance, do not understand the objections given. Rather than get into an edit war I decided to bring the issue here. The other editor initially objected that the references I had added were not notable. I felt that a band that is a Grammy award-winning member of the Grand Ole Opry and an album that has received national press coverage (Rolling Stone, The New Yorker) was at least as notable as the often obscure recordings already mentioned in these particular articles. The other party agreed with that observation, but then argued that the real reason for reverting was to avoid "endless lists of covers." Few, if any, of these articles mentioned more than a handful of covers - none were at risk of being overwhelmed by endless lists. And I felt that removing only a single entry, simply because it was the one most recently added, was highly arbitrary. Then the reason appeared to become that tribute albums are inherently not notable - another arbitrary decision - and I pointed out that many of the remaining entries were also for songs from tribute albums, some by major performers. And I was particularly confused by his citation of wikipedia policies that seemed to deal with the creation of stand-alone articles rather than additions to existing articles, as none of these edits had created a new, stand-alone article. This individual seemed to consider it to be a challenge or personal affront that I disagreed with him - this would be borne out by a review of our dialog on his talk page. His most recent response was to remove ALL mentions of cover versions in several of these articles - which seems to me to be based on spite rather than a desire for editorial consistency. In other words..."I'll show you...." If the determination is indeed that there should be NO mention of ANY cover versions of these songs, so be it - maybe that's better than arbitrary omissions. I'm completely in favor of consistency. But I personally think that that information adds to a reader's understanding of the song's cultural impact - and also that completely removing that information, rather than considering the addition of an item to the list, is a questionable decision. If you're going to remove entire sections from multiple articles, do it because it's the right editorial decision, NOT because you want to spite another editor. Thanks for your thoughts! PurpleChez ( talk) 19:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Are infobox chronologies like the "soundtrack chronologies" on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (soundtrack) appropriate? The infobox documentation states that chronology parameters should only be used for artists/composers. Jc86035 ( talk) 03:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on whether WP:PRIMARY content is appropriate as outlined at Talk:The Loudest Sound Ever Heard. Also, if you can help expand the article, that would be useful. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi all -- I'm excited to have fleshed out my first article here:
Seekers and Finders. I've done the initial work to make the article a stub, and I plan to expand it, but I have some questions about how to move forward:
- I did not originally create the article. Rather, it was an article that simply redirected to the artist page when searched. I then edited that redirect page. Is that a standard practice, or should I have created a new article and removed the simple redirect page? Relatedly, when I start typing the album name in search, both the original article show up and mine (with one saying "(album)" after its name). What can I do about that, so that only one entry shows up?
- I want to add the album cover. I read about fair use at
Template:Infobox_album, and I just want to verify that I have the correct understanding of how to do this. It sounds like I should download the image from the UI of Amazon.com (or similar), then upload it to Wikimedia Commons along with the templated rationale here:
Template:Non-free_use_rationale_album_cover.
- I did some searching to find the album personnel and studio information, and the only source I could find was the Allmusic page, which in turn does not cite anything:
http://www.allmusic.com/album/seekers-and-finders-mw0003065414/credits. Do you generally find Allmusic to be reliable?
- In suggestive search, I notice that many albums have subtext, e.g. "album by Gogol Bordello", under the album name. How do I get my article to do that?
- At the bottom of the album page, I've added an artist box (not sure exactly what these are called), by putting the artist name inside double curly braces. This new album whose page I've added, however, doesn't show up in the "Studio Albums" list inside that box. What can I do about that?
Thank you for your help.
Cloud atlas ( talk) 03:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm new on here. I'd like to contribute to some album articles, but the Talk pages direct me to this page: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums". I would like to, for example, add an executive producer credit and correct the Name in the Infobox on the following page Chill Out (John Lee Hooker album). Should I address such items here (on WikiProject Albums) or should I start discussions directly on the article Talk pages that I would like to contribute to? Thank you 2bImpeckable ( talk) 21:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the Redirect WikiProject talk page that could use input from this project, as it concerns albums/songs and is thus in your purview. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 19:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Don't Look Back (John Lee Hooker album)
The liner notes for the CD release (Shout Factory, cat no. 826663-10437) lists the producer credits as above.
Chill Out (John Lee Hooker album)
http://www.allmusic.com/album/chill-out-things-gonna-change-mw0000122219/credits
http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-healer-mw0000201557/credits
If the above points are agreeable, I will go ahead with these edits on the album articles. Thank you 2bImpeckable ( talk) 18:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Lucky (John Lee Hooker album) is one other article I'd like to address a couple of items.
Thanks. 2bImpeckable ( talk) 17:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
I proposed a merger of the Back to the Future sountrack article into the parent article, " Back to the Future" two weeks ago. I invite you to comment at Talk:Back to the Future#Merger proposal. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It's taken 9 months to get there, but finally Category:Pages using infobox album with unknown parameters is empty. There were 4500 articles containing template errors, leftover fields, defunct fields and made up fields; but they're now history, which is the main point. Thank you to whoever helped along the way, I could see the numbers change from time to time, but had no way of finding out who had fixed what. So you'll all be happy to know that I won't be flooding your Watchlist with edits... but... Doing these fixes has helped me spot a number of problems with the usage of the template on articles, with fields being re-purposed and information being crammed in one field when it should be split over two etc. but, they're a problem for later, first there are some errors still showing on the template error report that need manually fixing, then I'm going to re-scan all of my edits for the italics problem that surfaced during the edit run. After that I'll download a database dump and check how common the things I've spotted are. Thanks again to those that helped along the way. - X201 ( talk) 07:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I have opened an RfC regarding how a label's artists should be listed here. Any editor in this WikiProject is more than welcome to contribute. jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 02:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Would it be okay to consider http://youredm.com/ reliable for Electronic music articles? We've been using it on the Monstercat article and related articles without problem for a while. jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 00:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm new to here but I am really curious about one question: While browsing Wikipedia, I found quite a lot of music albums are rated with 0/5 stars on Allmusic (or any other aggregate music rating site),(e.g.: /info/en/?search=Signal_(album) ). But when I clicked into the album page on the rating site, turns out the album is actually not rated, therefore receiving a 0/5 score instead of because being a bad album. In such cases, shouldn't these albums be should be marked as unrated specifically, to prevent confusion about music quality of these albums?
138.19.25.129 ( talk) 17:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to place Heylin's dates on the track listing? Talk:The Philosopher's Stone (album)#RFC on recording dates. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Anyone able to provide some feedback on a discussion I'm having with another user at Talk:Monstercat#WP:OR Monstercat errors? I've already hatted an off-topic discussion in the thread which includes my attempts at getting back on track, but I don't know how else to respond other than what I've already argued. jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 16:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
A Nancy Ajram ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) fan has done a lot of editing to the BLP and associated articles. Some eyes would be appreciated. These are at AfD, and I would appreciate some input on notability.
Thanks. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I've added type "other" to infobox album because the other field was getting mixed up with blank fields. This has now created the question, what should it link to? Currently I've linked it to Timeline of audio formats as a placeholder. The question is, what article best represents the oddball formats that will fall under this? e.g Things that aren't EPs but at the same time not albums, or albums that are both live and studio at the same time. Suggestions please. - X201 ( talk) 18:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure quite how to do this, or if I'm even posting in the right place. Wikipedia has a large number of pages devoted to individual jazz LPs, and for the most part, they're invaluable. The information is detailed and accurate. But I have problems with the pages created for a number of albums made by John Coltrane in the late 1950s, and released for the most part in the early 1960s, for Prestige Records. The information isn't wrong, exactly, but its tone strikes me as unnecessarily snarky and dismissive. I'll refer to one entry, the one for the album Black Pearls. The entry begins "Black Pearls is an album credited to jazz musician John Coltrane..." Why "credited to"? Other entries on albums by other jazz artists just say "an album by..." "Credited to" implies that this is somehow not how the album should be credited, but the session log for the date quite clearly lists it as a John Coltrane session. It goes on to say "It is assembled from the results of a single recording session," but you don't assemble something from a single recording session -- it was the recording session. And finally, at the end of each of these entries on Coltrane's Prestige albums, the writer adds "Prestige used unissued recordings to create new marketable albums without Coltrane's input or approval," as though this were some sort of unusual or high-handed thing, when in fact it's standard. Coltrane went into the studio, cut an album's worth of material, and Prestige released it on a schedule that they thought best. I don't want to just go ahead and rewrite all these, and get into some sort of jazz feud, but I thought it was worth bringing up. Tad Richards ( talk) 14:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Tad Richards
Certification definitions in Canada changed around the middle of the year. Eurohunter ( talk) 08:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Say, if anyone is able to find enough resources related to any of these redirects I created to turn them into articles, please do so. For example, I know Harry Shotta is notable for beating Eminem's record for most words spoken in a song, but if it fails WP:BLP1E, I'm not against leaving it a redirect. Please also see the following section, which is related.
And yes, I know some redirects were titles of previously deleted articles, but is it better to have them as redirects to more related topics rather than making articles out of them? jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 03:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
About 3 months ago, I withdrew an AfD I opened for Notaker, an article created out of a COI from a previous redirect, as sources emerged to keep the page up. The user who created the article from the redirect has since been indeffed for username policy violations. Several months later, one of the websites used a source in the article, Your EDM, was deemed as potentially unreliable by Sergecross73 at WP:RSN. Looking at the article again today, I'm still concerned about notability on this musician, and was hoping someone would open another AFD discussion for the article. Even I don't see any of the listed reliable sources talking about him. jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 22:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The article I created for Ships in the Night (Vicki Lawrence album) by Vicki Lawrence should not be deleted, so I have to remind you that the article for that album should not be for deletion. Thank you.
Signed ~~88ui7~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88ui7 ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I have taken out the collapsed
option from {{
Track listing}} due to
accessibility concerns. Note that the vast majority of instances are collapsing one to three bonus tracks (e.g. one of hundreds of examples:
Metallica_(album)#Track_listing). That is not really saving anyone much in the way of scrolling and creating a lot of pointless clicks to expand. In a minority of cases, the track listing template was hiding something like a second disc of a live show or even sometimes the entire contents of a track listing for a box set--I'm not sure what the purpose is of even having a list if you don't display it. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
20:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
FYI, while I was creating an article and looking up chart positions, I noticed that, unless I'm doing something wrong or its temporary, Billboard has redone its website, breaking the links to the sources that verify charting positions for albums/songs.
The links still sort of work - I mean, for example, checking the ref that once verified that Breaking Benjamin's Dark Before Dawn topped the Billboard 200, is supposed to link to a page that now look like this, and yet, now just links to the generic band page at Billboard like http://www.billboard.com/music/breaking-benjamin - which can still indirectly get you to the charting position, but now it takes some research/clicks instead.
So, not catastrohpic, but...it leaves a ton of sources that technically need fixing. I'm not necessarily requesting such a monumental task, just making sure that people are aware of the situation. I figured it could affect people's efforts to determine notability, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I started a discussion a while back proposing we stop categorizing all albums by artists by genre. There was some support for this, but now I'm having trouble finding the discussion in the archives. I keep finding artist categories that aren't quite right, so I'd like to revisit this discussion and submit a formal request for comment. Does any project member recall this discussion and know where it lives? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Somebody has raised the point that this project should be notified of an ongoing CfD/CfR discussion whether the following and similar album related cats should be container cats. English Language albums -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated Segundo Romance as a [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Segundo Romance/archive1 |featured article candidate]]. Please feel free to drop any feedback about the article on the FAC. Thanks in advance! Erick ( talk) 15:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 15:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Just curious, as I'm not very familiar with the website, and probably for good reason, they closed down in 2007, a year before I even joined Wikipedia, but has this one every been very closely evaluated for reliability? Or did it just kinda get grandfathered in from the lax early days of Wikipedia?
For background, I was cleaning up the Seether article page a little bit, and was checking through the sources for the genre nu metal to see if they were legit, as that's not really a claim I've commonly seen made for the band, and looking over the actual article, they also made the rather dubious claim that Hoobastank's love ballad " The Reason" was also nu metal. I then came to WP:MUSIC/SOURCES to see that it was on the RS list.
Now, usually I wouldn't challenge a source's reliability on something like this, but since like I said, my usual ways of evaluating source reliability (looking over to see if they have an established staff, staff credentials, editorial policies, etc) were coming up empty since most attempts to look around the website resulted in broken links to error pages.
Again, I don't mean for this to be a WP:GENREWARRING argument or anything like that- if its considered reliable, so be it. But in my experience, that source had a number of claims that I haven't commonly seen replicated elsewhere, so I thought I'd check.
Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I disagree that Discogs and 45cat.com should be sources to avoid. Sure have Allmusic as a first priority reference, but when a release is not available on AllMusic, then these other sources should be able to be used when an editor is able to determine that the reference is indisputable. When compiling discographies of older artists and artists of previous generations, there are many releases that are not on AllMusic, particularly rarer releases. This leaves a gap in the ability to add an online reference to these items. I have found that many of the items missing from AllMusic are documented well in Discogs and/or 45cat.com with images of the front and back cover and pictures of the vinyl labels for both sides. Even if you disregard the usually good track-listing, the pictures don't lie. So I think this guideline needs to be reviewed. I think it would be better to have a guideline to allow use of references from Discogs and 45cat.com where that reference meets a standard of documentation so as documentation matches the details of the pictured items. As long as it meets that standard, it is indisputable and I think it should qualify as suitable for use as a reference. AusChartMan ( talk) 15:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite AV media notes}}
: CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) (
link)Can you put Forbes.com to WP:ALBUMAVOID? Because acccording to RS noticeboard, Tenebrae says "Forbes "contributors" are not Forbes editorial staff, but suppliers of user-generated content." (Forbes is just a printed magazine btw) 115.164.94.36 ( talk) 14:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Following on from TheAmazingPeanuts post above, I was taking a look at the current list of reliable sources, and I wanted to add some. Most are not contentious, I think, but as ever, I should get consensus first.
Not contentious:
Possibly contentious:
I have nominated List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States as a featured list candidate. I'd greatly appreciate any feedback! Erick ( talk) 17:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
If anyone is willing to provide feedback on the matter, the discussion is here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I've opened this subsection up for Sergecross73 once he determines the reliability of this website as a source, as he said he'd do in the AfD. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Do HotNewHipHop [2] and Salute Magazine [3] count as reliable sources because they do published news, album reviews and other things. HotNewHipHop have been used in multiple hip hop related articles as an reliable source, but it's not on WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. Are these sources are reliable or not? TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 00:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I would more-or-less agree with Sergecross73. I was going to disagree with him on HotNewHipHop but then I started looking at content. First, artist profiles. I picked a letter at random and an artist whose name I recognize that was near the top: https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/LilWayne/profile/ I then looked up that same artist at AllMusic: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/lil-wayne-mn0000272689/biography I noticed two things immediately: the AllMusic bio is vastly larger than the HotNewHipHop bio, and it also has a byline. I also like the performer's image better in the latter, but that doesn't help it meet RS. So their bios fail RS. I notice that there is a news tab on the profile, and it appears that the news entries do meet RS. They have a byline and they seem to link to a page listing other staff entries. That's quite common. The reviews are written by the same staff as the ones who write the news. I would argue that they're reliable as well. But now you have general staff writers rather than reviewers, and that throws the whole thing into question. RSN usually addresses things in this way as well. In other words, what do you want to use from the site and where? The other site fails at the level of having a page that clearly identifies staff and its editorial policy. We can't assume it's a RS. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/LadyGaGa/profile/
A change to the MetroLyrics entry at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES#List of unreliable sources (with link to relevant discussion) is proposed at WT:WikiProject Songs#MetroLyrics. Please add your comments there. — Ojorojo ( talk) 00:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Janet Jackson (album) is undergoing a GA reassessment. Most problems have been tackled, however, the article does not meet criteria 3a, as it does not address the main aspects of the topic - there is almost nothing about production of the album, and little about critical reception on release. The reassessment is on hold for seven days to allow time to build the article. SilkTork ( talk) 01:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I recently used a Daily Mail source in the reception section of this album, but it was removed with a WP:ALBUMAVOID rationale. Thing is, that section says nothing about the Daily Mail being inappropriate. I'm no fan of that particular newspaper, but have always understood there are circumstances in which its use is acceptable, such as in the case of citing an album review. What do others think? It its use ok here, or should it be avoided? This is Paul ( talk) 18:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Albums
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 13:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned about what I interpret as confusion ove over album's background section. A great example is the 1989 (Taylor Swift album) article, where the background sections seems almost entirely composed of information about her previous album and promotion of it. I also saw similar themes on other (mostly pop albums). Really these sections should be about what led to the development of the album more so than what they did previously. Any ideas how to curb this practice? -- Deathawk ( talk) 23:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. I would love to get some more input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalog numbering systems for single records. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Should a limited pressing of a Record Store Day release be considered a single from an album for purposes of the album infobox? To me, this would seem to be a type of release that doesn't constitute an official single since it's only to promote a merchandising holiday and is only available in limited quantities. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 ( talk • contributions) 22:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Specifically, I'm thinking about " The Blackout" by U2. It was released as a limited edition Record Store Day single (the album version of the song on side A, and a remix on side B). Would that make it a single from Songs of Experience? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 ( talk • contributions) 02:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I started the discussion at Talk:Zodiac (film)#Notability of Zodiac (soundtrack), where I invite you to discuss Zodiac (soundtrack). George Ho ( talk) 10:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Albums,
Unregistered editors cannot create articles on Wikipedia, but they can use the articles for creation process to submit drafts that registered editors can either accept and publish or decline. WikiProject Articles for creation is looking for experienced editors who want to partake in this peer review process. If you have what it takes to get involved, then please take a look at the reviewing instructions. To discuss specific AfC reviews, do so freely on the designated talk page.
There is currently a backlog of over 3100 drafts (0 very old).
If you know an editor who may be willing to help out, please use the template you are currently reading {{subst:
WPAFCInvite}}
to draw attention to this WikiProject. Many hands make light work!
Editors willing to review a variety of drafts are especially welcome. If you're interested only in reviewing certain topics, that still helps. At least 11 pending drafts are about albums (are in the intersection of Category:Pending AfC submissions and Category:Draft-Class Album articles). Over 2000 pending drafts have not yet had a WikiProject added, so more may be in the scope of this WikiProject. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 00:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Links to pending album drafts:
Title | Page ID | Namespace | Size (bytes) | Last change |
---|---|---|---|---|
Girl Talk | 53686120 | 118 | 2440 | 20171230044647 |
Midnight Music in London | 54145818 | 118 | 3735 | 20171230041941 |
Acoustic Highway | 55362865 | 118 | 5162 | 20171230042401 |
Play Dead | 55498976 | 118 | 3886 | 20171230041805 |
Entertainment | 55583433 | 118 | 4118 | 20171230040752 |
Yellow | 55836410 | 118 | 4772 | 20171230041701 |
Subversive Paradigm | 55894182 | 118 | 2705 | 20171230042344 |
Feel Infinite - Album | 55914619 | 118 | 4056 | 20171230042708 |
My Life | 55959025 | 118 | 22823 | 20171230043853 |
My Zone | 56075323 | 118 | 4058 | 20171230045545 |
-- Worldbruce ( talk) 06:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated Amarte Es un Placer (album) for FA. I would appreciate any comments in the FAC. Thanks! Erick ( talk) 15:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm reviewing Marilyn Manson (band) for GA, here, and I asked the nominator if there was a list of reliable music sources. They pointed me at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, which is very helpful. However, since I am not allowed to just take a WikiProject's word for it that a source is reliable, can I suggest that you add a "link to discussion" column to the "reliable sources" table that shows any discussion of reliability. This obviously isn't necessary for the ones that wouldn't be questioned in the first place, such as Entertainment Weekly or NME, but it would be helpful for sources that aren't immediately obviously reliable. For example, metalsucks.net is on the list as reliable; if I could see how that was established it would make reviewing a lot quicker.
The full list of sources I asked about, in case anyone can shed light on any of them, is:
Thanks for any input on any of these. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Serious commment – have we ever come to a definitive conclusion about acharts, mentioned by Mike Christie above? I've been looking at some archive discussions, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 8#acharts.us, and the opinion seems to that some of its charts are reliable, but others aren't. Richard3120 ( talk) 18:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all above for this discussion; it's very helpful. For the GA review I'm doing I've decided to go ahead and accept the ones listed by Sergecross73 as reliable, and have asked the nominator to remove the others. As those of you who nominate at FAC will already know, a WikiProject's opinion is useful information at FAC but isn't definitive, so for the reliable ones, including a link to a discussion in your table of reliable sources would really be helpful. Thanks again. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Since I got helpful answers to my question (above), I'm back to ask about more sources from another GA review. The article is chillwave and the review is here. Can anyone comment on the reliability of these two?
Thanks for any help. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
( ←) The script is progressing nicely, but what you are discussing here is the most awkward thing of all to do in your wishlist, I think. The only way I would know how to do it would be hardcoding a list (probably a large one) in the script and spinning through it, looking for a match to journal or website name. That is very very klunky; untenable from a maintenance point of view. Someone better than I knows how to pass info like this around.... now that I think about it, perhaps/probably that item should be done in an entirely different script or by a bot...? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.
Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 ( talk) 19:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I've started RFCs on a couple of issues that have come up recently in the music related areas of Wikipedia. If anyone is interested in chiming in, your input would be much appreciated. The two discussions are:
Any input would be appreciated, so we can come to a consensus on how to handle these situations. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Looking through the archives, there doesn't seem to ever have been any consensus to add it in the first place. Most discussions were about removing it, questioning it, or using it a reference point for other sources. It's hard to check now, since it was shutdown and went offline in 2016, but it sound like they did both staff and user reviews, but there doesn't seem to have been much in the way of credentials in being a staff member.
I don't know if it's worth adding to the unreliable source, as its no longer usable, but I personally support removing it from the reliable list. I don't think we should be recommending its use. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Thought Yeepsi might want to take a look at this - they use this site as a source frequently. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 16:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Loudwire is a website used pretty heavily used in the hard rock/metal areas of Wikipedia. I definitely think they are reliable, but there wasn't much in the past of a centralized discussion on it, so I wanted to document a discussion here.
I support their use, and haven't seen any discussions opposing their use historically. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I swear one of their editors also worked for MTV Online at one point but I don't remember which one it was... dannymusiceditor Speak up! 18:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
HM Magazine is another one that I support its use, but it hasn't seen a ton of discussion so I figured I'd post it here.
Like Loudwire, I support their use, and have seen any discussions opposing it historically either. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree the website should be labeled as an unreliable source in Wikipedia, since it still being used in review aggregators like, Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic?. It even got its own profile page in Metacritic right here [10]. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 00:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
At this GAN I asked about Steve Rosen, who is cited at that article for some ultimate-guitar.com pages. The WP Albums sources page says "Only cite articles written by "UG Team" or any members within its group."; the GA nominator pointed out that Rosen is described as a UG interviewer, and provided links. I'm not familiar with the site. Can anyone here advise if Rosen qualifies as a reliable source? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Right now it only lists UK chart performance. (I'm not skilled at those chart tables so I'm letting people here and elsewhere know.) Softlavender ( talk) 13:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Arrow (album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Arrow (album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mungo Kitsch ( talk) 20:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to ask editors involved in this project about citing the Encyclopedia of Popular Music. Specifically, I wanted to know whether you should include the page numbers in citations for reviews from it based on this version (i.e. the ones included on Google Books but that are not found on the book pages themselves). Every Morning (there's a halo...) 04:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello all. Due to some recent requests, and my own increased interest in music editing in recent years, I've decided to try to cleanup and improve our source list a bit. There's nothing wrong with it, and I'm not planning on doing any major deconstruction or anything, just some improvement stuff. I've worked a lot at the video game WikiProject's equivalent list and there's things I think we could do better here.
I'll occasionally start new discussions as I find things I'd like input on. If you object to my changes, feel free to start up a section below too, and we can hash it out.
Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Obviously from my point of view there was my post Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 55#To add to sources list, but I take it you're more interested in current online sources. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Alternative Addiction. I almost didn't bother bringing it up, as much as I've seen it be used on Wikipedia. But the archives have 0 discussions about it, and my cursory glances didn't come up with any of the stuff I wanted to see.
Am I missing something here? Anyone else more knowledgeable with them? I don't have much of an argument for keeping it on the reliable sources list so far... Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)