![]() | 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 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
There has been some disagreements in articles like, Campaign and Jeffery. An editor named, In ictu oculi, thinks that the articles should be called albums instead of mixtapes, but these projects was released as mixtapes. Commercial mixtapes at that. Do they have a point, do these projects like, If You're Reading This It's Too Late, Coloring Book and Slime Season 3, should be classified as digital albums instead of mixtapes. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 17:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. I welcome you to join a discussion on the use of personnel lists in album article at the MOS. Discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 19:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The article Pet Fishsticks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence that this comes close to satisfying WP:NALBUM or even WP:GNG. No independent sources cited showing that this is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Perhaps a redirect to Steve Dahl would be an alternative to deletion, but in that case the non-free use of the album cover art being used in the infobox would need to be reassessed since it's unlikely to meet WP:NFC#cite_note-3 as currently used.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 00:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I remember there was at least one discussion where it was said that {{ Infobox album}}, {{ Infobox song}} and {{ Extra chronology}} shouldn't have chronologies for franchises (e.g. Hunger Games "soundtrack chronology") and members of a group (e.g. Wu-Tang Clan members chronology), but I don't know if this counts as consensus. I remembered about this because I found another one in The Matrix Revolutions: Music from the Motion Picture (I removed a few dozen of them last July).
Jc86035 ( talk) 10:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that it's hilariously ironic that a website based on the idea that "anyone can edit" would frown upon citing other websites based on the idea that "anyone can edit" as a citation source -- even when, in several cases, they're more accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matharvest ( talk • contribs)
Hello everybody. About article assessment: How would you rate or assess this version of Dave's Picks Volume 25 -- "Stub", or "Start" -- and, for optional extra credit, why? I would like to see what the members of this WikiProject think about this, so the more editors who post their opinions, the better. This isn't to settle a dispute about that particular article, it's to get a feel for what other editors think about assessing album articles that look like that.
To refresh your memory, here are the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment#Quality scale.
"Stub":
A very basic description of the album. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a title and track listing.
"Start":
An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and lacks adequate reliable sources. It should have:
Thanks. — Mudwater ( Talk) 19:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I see little difference between Breakin' It Up, Breakin' It Down and Dave's Picks Volume 25, but one is a stub and one is a start? You have the name of the album, who recorded it, when it was recorded, when it was released, and a chart position. These to me equate to "a very basic description of the album", not even close to what I expect as an "overview of the album", a requirement for a start. And I certainly don't have a problem with the existence of stub articles. All I do is try to add an assessment based on the criteria, anyone can change it to what they think it should be. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 07:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
In my original post I quoted from the WikiProject Albums assessment guidelines. I would encourage interested editors to also look through the general article assessment guidelines, at Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment#Grades. Scroll down to Stub and Start, and click "show" to display the more detailed criteria. Here's part of what it says there:
"Stub":
A very basic description of the topic.... The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article.... Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition....
"Start":
An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete.... The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas.... Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more....
— Mudwater ( Talk) 12:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Do any other editors have an opinion about this? The short version of the question is this: All would agree that this article should be assessed as a "Stub". But what about this one? Should it be assessed as "Stub", or "Start"? Again, it's not a dispute about that particular article, I'm using it as an example of a more general question. Thanks. — Mudwater ( Talk) 21:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know how often the Project's main table ("Album articles by quality and importance") is updated? It's not in real time. I am curious because yesterday I re-assessed several albums that had been listed as "Future" but have actually been released, and the quantities in the table do not yet reflect this. Thanks. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Could someone help me verify the production credits of Yours Truly (Ariana Grande album)? Several entries were removed from the lists in this edit by Epep123 (currently inactive) without any explanation; I noticed because it messed up the list formatting. The table is currently unsourced. Thanks, Jc86035 ( talk) 11:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been working on some articles related to the Lookout! Records label, and could use some group input on an idea. In the early 1990s, independent punk label Selfless Records paid several bands (all of whom were on Lookout!) to record cover versions of the first three Ramones albums: Screeching Weasel covered Ramones, the Vindictives did Leave Home, and the Queers did Rocket to Russia. Selfless then launched a sub-label, Clearview Records, who continued the series through the late '90s: The Mr. T Experience covered Road to Ruin, Boris the Sprinkler did End of the Century, the Beatnik Termites did Pleasant Dreams, the McRackins did Too Tough to Die, and the Parasites did It's Alive.
Right now, several of these releases are covered in separate articles:
In the past I think at least a few of these were covered as subsections within the articles on the original Ramones albums, but were later split off. There doesn't seem to be much reliable secondary source coverage out there for these releases, which isn't surprising since the labels were small, most of the records were only released in limited numbers, and several of the artists involved weren't very well-known. Thus these separate articles are mostly just infoboxes and tracklists; what little else they have is either unsourced or sourced to fan sites and the like. It seems to me that, since they form an informal series, it might be best to merge the verifiable content together into a single article covering the whole series. I think there's probably enough source coverage available to get such an article started, with the more significant installments receiving the most coverage and the rest getting smaller mentions. Before doing anything, I thought I'd ask for opinions. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 00:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Do Digital Radio Tracker chartings count for anything? Probably a silly question but I can't see anything at Wikipedia:Record charts that tells me one way or another, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts hasn't been edited for months. At least a pointer in the right direction would be appreciated. TIA Andrewa ( talk) 08:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Albums! I have nominated this discography for WP:FL (you can find it here) and the review seems to have stalled. May I please ask that anyone interested take a few moments to review it and leave comments and support for its promotion? It would be greatly appreciated and I would be happy to reciprocate if you have anything that needs commenting. Thank you! — Miss Sarita 17:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Just need one or two more "Supports"! A lot of the major legwork has already been done. If anyone has some time to look it over, that would be so wonderful! It's so close! And as I mentioned, I am more than happy to take a look at anything you have that needs to be reviewed (now or any time in the future). Thank you! — Miss Sarita 19:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I have been working on Amor Prohibido for some time now and believe I have exhausted every outlet I have in expanding this article. I tried to get a peer review completed back in November but it was archived with no input. So I am coming here to you guys in hopes that this will attract reviews or even just passerby comments. I am hoping to bring this article to FAC in the very near future, but I don't want to nominate it if it is not ready. Thanks – jona ✉ 14:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 13:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Moxy has amended the Beatles project banner to remove all the albums from WP:albums, and other projects. His rationale for this change is Wikipedia:WikiProject coordination, which would actually say there cannot be co-ordination between projects. FWIW, It means every Beatle album (and any album or related category remotely connected to the Beatles have now been removed from this project. A discussion has already been started by me at User_talk:Moxy#Template:WikiProject_The_Beatles:_Difference_between_revisions. Anybody else have an opinion? This will also be posted at songs and Beatles projects -- Richhoncho ( talk) 22:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Several points have been made and I would like to respond to each.
Finally, unless I am missing something, I am not seeing any benefit to separating projects under the general auspices of music. Not convinced by any argument above. Unilaterally removing projects without any discussion is not helpful for anybody, especially in view of the number of articles affected – that’s the reason they are protected!!! -- Richhoncho ( talk) 11:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
album=yes
in the band template. It also goes against existing tagging conventions. There are many overlaps and hierarchies of WikiProjects, but traditionally every WikiProject uses its own banner for tagging, and the task force parameters are used for actual task forces. Misusing the task force parameters is not a good solution. My personal suggestion would be to ask for a bot to migrate these parameters into separate WikiProject banners on the affected talk pages and then remove the album=yes
parameters.
Kaldari (
talk) 20:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I remember years ago having the same issues with this site when I started on Wikipedia as a contributor, being very sceptical of the website as a reliable source. But I'm starting to question this lately...
The primary reason for having this new curiosity regarding the websites status was sparked when I noticed several big names either re-tweeting Dead Press! articles or tweeting at the Dead Press! account directly, suggesting that these notable names in the industry do regard this site as reliable, gladly sharing their articles and promoting them in the process. I have found more of these interactions and they include:
NOTE: using twitter, if you search for example "from:FOZZYROCK @deadpresszine" it will display the tweets Fozzy has sent/mentioned to Dead Press!
Because of this I thought perhaps another discussion was required regarding the sites reliability, especially since the last discussion in 2011 was unanimously negative due to the users malware warnings being set off. Whether or not this was indeed due to virus' being present on the site or simply their web-browsers giving false-alarms (something that I have experienced myself on other reliable and safe websites) is unknown but I for one recently have not gotten any from Dead Press! so I doubt that's the case anymore. I would argue perhaps that the sites reports and interviews are fine but since the authors of the site hold little credibility, perhaps their reviews should be excluded? I'm also aware that the simple fact that the authors, and even the site owners themselves, don't have much in terms of experience outside of Dead Press! so I'm unsure whether that alone fails the site for its reliability.
Anyway, thank you for your time and hope to hear back from you guys soon. - SilentDan ( talk) 17:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I would say it's definitely gotten better. I am in favor of moving this to the reliable list. dannymusiceditor oops 02:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Since it's been a couple of days, shall I list the site as Reliable? Everyone seems to be in favour of it. SilentDan ( talk) 14:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
This is a website that has been sourced on good articles such as:
The thing is, I'm pretty sure Setlist.fm is a user contributed site. So why is it being used on these articles? It's not listed on WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES at all so I don't suppose a discussion regarding this site has taken place. - SilentDan ( talk) 20:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
So in passing I fix a bad date usage with {{albumchart|UK2|date=nnnn-nn-nn}}. Then I wonder how many times someone has specified the date using YYYY-MM-DD instead of the documented YYYYMMDD (see Template:Album chart). So I search using
and in the first 20 results of 1000+ I see 12 wrong date format usages and only 5 correct! So many usages are wrong, such as this edit from 2014?
Oh, and if I search using the other name for the template
I see 1720 results (the combination of old name 'albumchart' and new name "album chart"?), many which are the broken YYYY-MM-DD format. Hey, if even only half are broken, that's 800+ broken links.
Ahh, docs changed June 2017 by SnapSnap. Only... all the previously existing usages of YYYY-MM-DD were not changed to conform to the new URL format at that external web site?
Is this normal that no remedial action has been taken so that WP usages keep up with external realities? Can y'all suggest where to apply for bot fixups, or perhaps another way to fix sooo many now broken links? Shenme ( talk) 06:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok so in a scenario where an artist is being interviewed by a YouTuber with little or no journalistic credibility, would that be considered an unreliable source because of the interviewer despite the artist themselves being present in the video answering questions? I pondered on this when I came across the other sources section of the WikiProject Albums/Sources page and debated whether or not it fitted the definition of: "If the artist in question was subject to any form of recorded audio or video in the possible form of a television documentary or an informational DVD/VHS..."
Hope to hear your thoughts on this and perhaps when a verdict is brought an amendment can be made on the page to specify the reliability of these sorts of videos. Thank you for your time. - SilentDan ( talk) 13:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Precisely - I meant to mention that. Use them sparingly. dannymusiceditor oops 15:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Succession boxes are being added to song articles for specialty charts, such as Mainstream Rock,
[6] Alternative Songs,
[7] Adult Contemporary,
[8] etc., sometimes with "multiple runs.
[9] Please add your comments at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Succession boxes. —
Ojorojo (
talk) 15:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
A RfC has been opened on the question "Should succession boxes appear in song and album articles?" Please add your comments at WT:Manual of Style/Record charts#RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles. — Ojorojo ( talk) 16:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I created an album page in one of my subpage sandboxes. I pasted it over a redirect that was on the page with the name of the album. The redirect went to the band which recorded the album. Now people are deleting my work. I can see the global tags on the talk page but evidently I am too stupid after 11 years on Wikipedia to figure out how to delete them :) Free Yourself Up is the page Thanks Rcollman ( talk) 16:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Never new the trick of using my subpage so an editor can decide if it can be included. I will give it a try (after adding more sources and perhaps a review and Billboard ranking). Greatly appreciate your help. Rcollman ( talk) 14:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Project members may be interested in this discussion re: whether or not we should categorize all songs by an artist by specific genre(s). Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Please weigh in on this RfC at the Raw Power article, regarding the ratings template and how to cite Robert Christgau's reviews: one review of the original album whose earliest known publication was in the 1981 book Christgau's Record Guide, and another review of the remixed album whose earliest known publication was in the Village Voice in 1997. Dan56 ( talk) 18:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm perplexed about this source, Something Else!. MarilynMansonFan96 suggested I use this to help cite glam rock on Marilyn Manson (band), and I get this is an album review, I haven't considered its context yet, I'm just concerned about reliability here. I looked at its about page - it has many people listed as well as authors, however the results turn out to be mostly troubling - they seem like they do this as some sort of side job and are not professionals. The only one I did find was their co-founder (who is no longer with them as of 2015), Nick DeRiso, which lists something rather promising; currently, his LinkedIn profile states:
I'm a veteran editor, writer and manager with more than three decades of experience in print and online publishing. Named columnist of the year five times by the Associated Press, Louisiana Press Association and Louisiana Sports Writers Association, I previously oversaw a daily section that was named Top 10 in the nation by the AP.
What do you guys think? I have no idea what to think of this source, what with its other co-founder being a pro at SQL programming rather than writing, and the above article's writer listing no specific experience. dannymusiceditor oops 14:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Is anyone good at the certification tables and charts? I'm trying to work on the section at Chinese Democracy and really have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to that. The charts table needs to be alphabetized by default and the certifications table needs to be expanded. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. RF23 ( talk) 17:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Should the article, Scorpion_(Drake_album) be removed? A lot of misleading unconfirmed information on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomasTomasTomas ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. There is an ongoing debate on the criteria for the one-hit wonders in America listings over here at Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States#Inclusion criteria. It'd be nice if we could get some more opinions on the matter. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintendoswitchfan ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:I'm Free (The Rolling Stones song) about a possible redirection of the article to Out of Our Heads -- Tyw7 ( ☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 15:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not MusicBrainz authority file numbers should be included in {{ authority control}} is currently discussed at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#MusicBrainz. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
![]()
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Scott Floman is cited as source in several album and song articles. [10] Although he is sometimes identified as a "music critic for Goldmine magazine", references for his quotes and album ratings do not mention Goldmine and link to archives of "sfloman.com" [11] or "South Florida Insurance Man". [12] A Goldmine search turned up one article that quotes him. [13] He is quoted once in Guitar World [14] (a similar quote is in " Easy Now") and has ten Daily Vault reviews from 1997–1998. [15] The rest seem to be from WP mirror sites.
He wrote a book, The Story of Rock and Soul Music: Album Reviews and Lists 1960–2016, that appears to be self-published. [16] [17] The way he is referenced in WP articles, it is not clear which of his reviews were professionally published (with some oversight) and which are from his own self-published book or website. How should he be considered a reliable source? — Ojorojo ( talk) 18:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It is about Indian soundtrack albums. Nowadays, instead of physical CDs, they compile all the tracks together and upload it to YouTube, calling them Audio Jukeboxes. Take this soundtrack album as an instance. The personnel has been provided in the YouTube's description box. All I did was port it to October (soundtrack). Since it is hard data from an official primary source, there is no copyright violation because it is fair use. Did I do the right thing? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 04:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I just discovered today that there is a switch parameter in the {{
WikiProject Albums}} template to denote unreferenced articles, I find that extremely unnecessary, there are currently only 7 pages in
Category:Unreferenced album articles compared with
over ten thousand articles that are applicable and I have been adding the {{
unreferenced}} tag to album articles for a while now and simply inserting the tag does not get the talk page placed in that category, so I think it should be removed. -
CHAMPION (
talk) (
contributions) (
logs) 03:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Music Story album ratings appear in a number of album articles (for example [18]). Most of the citations are to Acclaimed Music, a music review aggregation site apparently operated by one person. These only show ratings (1–5 stars) without reviews, writers, dates, etc. Some link to archived reviews for music-story.com [19] or are dead links. The WP Music Story link and the company's "about" page describe it as "an international music data provider" [20] and makes no mention of album reviews by professional music writers.
How is a reader supposed to know that Music Story may have been a RS for album reviews at one time or that Acclaimed Music is not just another website that includes self-published ratings (it does have ratings by
Piero Scaruffi,
[21] who is currently on the
WP:ALBUMAVOID list)?
A February 2017 discussion didn't produce a consensus. With several review/rating options available, WP should not have to resort to using sources of questionable reliability just for another star rating with no commentary to back it up. This might also apply to ratings by other reviewers that are found on Acclaimed Music.
—
Ojorojo (
talk) 19:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The Music Story article now shows that it is/was a RS for album reviews (I am tempted to remove the notability tag, but WP:ORG has a lot of criteria). Should we assume that all its reviews are OK (similar to AllMusic) or just the ones by certain authors? I'd be hesitant to use unattributed ratings for albums such as Yellow Submarine (I try to avoid similar AllMusic "overviews"). How to treat Acclaimed Music probably needs more input and a separate discussion. — Ojorojo ( talk) 16:33, 5 June 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 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
There has been some disagreements in articles like, Campaign and Jeffery. An editor named, In ictu oculi, thinks that the articles should be called albums instead of mixtapes, but these projects was released as mixtapes. Commercial mixtapes at that. Do they have a point, do these projects like, If You're Reading This It's Too Late, Coloring Book and Slime Season 3, should be classified as digital albums instead of mixtapes. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 17:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. I welcome you to join a discussion on the use of personnel lists in album article at the MOS. Discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 19:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The article Pet Fishsticks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence that this comes close to satisfying WP:NALBUM or even WP:GNG. No independent sources cited showing that this is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Perhaps a redirect to Steve Dahl would be an alternative to deletion, but in that case the non-free use of the album cover art being used in the infobox would need to be reassessed since it's unlikely to meet WP:NFC#cite_note-3 as currently used.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 00:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I remember there was at least one discussion where it was said that {{ Infobox album}}, {{ Infobox song}} and {{ Extra chronology}} shouldn't have chronologies for franchises (e.g. Hunger Games "soundtrack chronology") and members of a group (e.g. Wu-Tang Clan members chronology), but I don't know if this counts as consensus. I remembered about this because I found another one in The Matrix Revolutions: Music from the Motion Picture (I removed a few dozen of them last July).
Jc86035 ( talk) 10:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that it's hilariously ironic that a website based on the idea that "anyone can edit" would frown upon citing other websites based on the idea that "anyone can edit" as a citation source -- even when, in several cases, they're more accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matharvest ( talk • contribs)
Hello everybody. About article assessment: How would you rate or assess this version of Dave's Picks Volume 25 -- "Stub", or "Start" -- and, for optional extra credit, why? I would like to see what the members of this WikiProject think about this, so the more editors who post their opinions, the better. This isn't to settle a dispute about that particular article, it's to get a feel for what other editors think about assessing album articles that look like that.
To refresh your memory, here are the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment#Quality scale.
"Stub":
A very basic description of the album. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a title and track listing.
"Start":
An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and lacks adequate reliable sources. It should have:
Thanks. — Mudwater ( Talk) 19:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I see little difference between Breakin' It Up, Breakin' It Down and Dave's Picks Volume 25, but one is a stub and one is a start? You have the name of the album, who recorded it, when it was recorded, when it was released, and a chart position. These to me equate to "a very basic description of the album", not even close to what I expect as an "overview of the album", a requirement for a start. And I certainly don't have a problem with the existence of stub articles. All I do is try to add an assessment based on the criteria, anyone can change it to what they think it should be. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 07:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
In my original post I quoted from the WikiProject Albums assessment guidelines. I would encourage interested editors to also look through the general article assessment guidelines, at Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment#Grades. Scroll down to Stub and Start, and click "show" to display the more detailed criteria. Here's part of what it says there:
"Stub":
A very basic description of the topic.... The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article.... Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition....
"Start":
An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete.... The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas.... Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more....
— Mudwater ( Talk) 12:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Do any other editors have an opinion about this? The short version of the question is this: All would agree that this article should be assessed as a "Stub". But what about this one? Should it be assessed as "Stub", or "Start"? Again, it's not a dispute about that particular article, I'm using it as an example of a more general question. Thanks. — Mudwater ( Talk) 21:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know how often the Project's main table ("Album articles by quality and importance") is updated? It's not in real time. I am curious because yesterday I re-assessed several albums that had been listed as "Future" but have actually been released, and the quantities in the table do not yet reflect this. Thanks. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Could someone help me verify the production credits of Yours Truly (Ariana Grande album)? Several entries were removed from the lists in this edit by Epep123 (currently inactive) without any explanation; I noticed because it messed up the list formatting. The table is currently unsourced. Thanks, Jc86035 ( talk) 11:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been working on some articles related to the Lookout! Records label, and could use some group input on an idea. In the early 1990s, independent punk label Selfless Records paid several bands (all of whom were on Lookout!) to record cover versions of the first three Ramones albums: Screeching Weasel covered Ramones, the Vindictives did Leave Home, and the Queers did Rocket to Russia. Selfless then launched a sub-label, Clearview Records, who continued the series through the late '90s: The Mr. T Experience covered Road to Ruin, Boris the Sprinkler did End of the Century, the Beatnik Termites did Pleasant Dreams, the McRackins did Too Tough to Die, and the Parasites did It's Alive.
Right now, several of these releases are covered in separate articles:
In the past I think at least a few of these were covered as subsections within the articles on the original Ramones albums, but were later split off. There doesn't seem to be much reliable secondary source coverage out there for these releases, which isn't surprising since the labels were small, most of the records were only released in limited numbers, and several of the artists involved weren't very well-known. Thus these separate articles are mostly just infoboxes and tracklists; what little else they have is either unsourced or sourced to fan sites and the like. It seems to me that, since they form an informal series, it might be best to merge the verifiable content together into a single article covering the whole series. I think there's probably enough source coverage available to get such an article started, with the more significant installments receiving the most coverage and the rest getting smaller mentions. Before doing anything, I thought I'd ask for opinions. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 00:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Do Digital Radio Tracker chartings count for anything? Probably a silly question but I can't see anything at Wikipedia:Record charts that tells me one way or another, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts hasn't been edited for months. At least a pointer in the right direction would be appreciated. TIA Andrewa ( talk) 08:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Albums! I have nominated this discography for WP:FL (you can find it here) and the review seems to have stalled. May I please ask that anyone interested take a few moments to review it and leave comments and support for its promotion? It would be greatly appreciated and I would be happy to reciprocate if you have anything that needs commenting. Thank you! — Miss Sarita 17:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Just need one or two more "Supports"! A lot of the major legwork has already been done. If anyone has some time to look it over, that would be so wonderful! It's so close! And as I mentioned, I am more than happy to take a look at anything you have that needs to be reviewed (now or any time in the future). Thank you! — Miss Sarita 19:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I have been working on Amor Prohibido for some time now and believe I have exhausted every outlet I have in expanding this article. I tried to get a peer review completed back in November but it was archived with no input. So I am coming here to you guys in hopes that this will attract reviews or even just passerby comments. I am hoping to bring this article to FAC in the very near future, but I don't want to nominate it if it is not ready. Thanks – jona ✉ 14:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 13:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Moxy has amended the Beatles project banner to remove all the albums from WP:albums, and other projects. His rationale for this change is Wikipedia:WikiProject coordination, which would actually say there cannot be co-ordination between projects. FWIW, It means every Beatle album (and any album or related category remotely connected to the Beatles have now been removed from this project. A discussion has already been started by me at User_talk:Moxy#Template:WikiProject_The_Beatles:_Difference_between_revisions. Anybody else have an opinion? This will also be posted at songs and Beatles projects -- Richhoncho ( talk) 22:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Several points have been made and I would like to respond to each.
Finally, unless I am missing something, I am not seeing any benefit to separating projects under the general auspices of music. Not convinced by any argument above. Unilaterally removing projects without any discussion is not helpful for anybody, especially in view of the number of articles affected – that’s the reason they are protected!!! -- Richhoncho ( talk) 11:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
album=yes
in the band template. It also goes against existing tagging conventions. There are many overlaps and hierarchies of WikiProjects, but traditionally every WikiProject uses its own banner for tagging, and the task force parameters are used for actual task forces. Misusing the task force parameters is not a good solution. My personal suggestion would be to ask for a bot to migrate these parameters into separate WikiProject banners on the affected talk pages and then remove the album=yes
parameters.
Kaldari (
talk) 20:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I remember years ago having the same issues with this site when I started on Wikipedia as a contributor, being very sceptical of the website as a reliable source. But I'm starting to question this lately...
The primary reason for having this new curiosity regarding the websites status was sparked when I noticed several big names either re-tweeting Dead Press! articles or tweeting at the Dead Press! account directly, suggesting that these notable names in the industry do regard this site as reliable, gladly sharing their articles and promoting them in the process. I have found more of these interactions and they include:
NOTE: using twitter, if you search for example "from:FOZZYROCK @deadpresszine" it will display the tweets Fozzy has sent/mentioned to Dead Press!
Because of this I thought perhaps another discussion was required regarding the sites reliability, especially since the last discussion in 2011 was unanimously negative due to the users malware warnings being set off. Whether or not this was indeed due to virus' being present on the site or simply their web-browsers giving false-alarms (something that I have experienced myself on other reliable and safe websites) is unknown but I for one recently have not gotten any from Dead Press! so I doubt that's the case anymore. I would argue perhaps that the sites reports and interviews are fine but since the authors of the site hold little credibility, perhaps their reviews should be excluded? I'm also aware that the simple fact that the authors, and even the site owners themselves, don't have much in terms of experience outside of Dead Press! so I'm unsure whether that alone fails the site for its reliability.
Anyway, thank you for your time and hope to hear back from you guys soon. - SilentDan ( talk) 17:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I would say it's definitely gotten better. I am in favor of moving this to the reliable list. dannymusiceditor oops 02:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Since it's been a couple of days, shall I list the site as Reliable? Everyone seems to be in favour of it. SilentDan ( talk) 14:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
This is a website that has been sourced on good articles such as:
The thing is, I'm pretty sure Setlist.fm is a user contributed site. So why is it being used on these articles? It's not listed on WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES at all so I don't suppose a discussion regarding this site has taken place. - SilentDan ( talk) 20:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
So in passing I fix a bad date usage with {{albumchart|UK2|date=nnnn-nn-nn}}. Then I wonder how many times someone has specified the date using YYYY-MM-DD instead of the documented YYYYMMDD (see Template:Album chart). So I search using
and in the first 20 results of 1000+ I see 12 wrong date format usages and only 5 correct! So many usages are wrong, such as this edit from 2014?
Oh, and if I search using the other name for the template
I see 1720 results (the combination of old name 'albumchart' and new name "album chart"?), many which are the broken YYYY-MM-DD format. Hey, if even only half are broken, that's 800+ broken links.
Ahh, docs changed June 2017 by SnapSnap. Only... all the previously existing usages of YYYY-MM-DD were not changed to conform to the new URL format at that external web site?
Is this normal that no remedial action has been taken so that WP usages keep up with external realities? Can y'all suggest where to apply for bot fixups, or perhaps another way to fix sooo many now broken links? Shenme ( talk) 06:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok so in a scenario where an artist is being interviewed by a YouTuber with little or no journalistic credibility, would that be considered an unreliable source because of the interviewer despite the artist themselves being present in the video answering questions? I pondered on this when I came across the other sources section of the WikiProject Albums/Sources page and debated whether or not it fitted the definition of: "If the artist in question was subject to any form of recorded audio or video in the possible form of a television documentary or an informational DVD/VHS..."
Hope to hear your thoughts on this and perhaps when a verdict is brought an amendment can be made on the page to specify the reliability of these sorts of videos. Thank you for your time. - SilentDan ( talk) 13:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Precisely - I meant to mention that. Use them sparingly. dannymusiceditor oops 15:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Succession boxes are being added to song articles for specialty charts, such as Mainstream Rock,
[6] Alternative Songs,
[7] Adult Contemporary,
[8] etc., sometimes with "multiple runs.
[9] Please add your comments at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Succession boxes. —
Ojorojo (
talk) 15:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
A RfC has been opened on the question "Should succession boxes appear in song and album articles?" Please add your comments at WT:Manual of Style/Record charts#RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles. — Ojorojo ( talk) 16:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I created an album page in one of my subpage sandboxes. I pasted it over a redirect that was on the page with the name of the album. The redirect went to the band which recorded the album. Now people are deleting my work. I can see the global tags on the talk page but evidently I am too stupid after 11 years on Wikipedia to figure out how to delete them :) Free Yourself Up is the page Thanks Rcollman ( talk) 16:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Never new the trick of using my subpage so an editor can decide if it can be included. I will give it a try (after adding more sources and perhaps a review and Billboard ranking). Greatly appreciate your help. Rcollman ( talk) 14:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Project members may be interested in this discussion re: whether or not we should categorize all songs by an artist by specific genre(s). Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Please weigh in on this RfC at the Raw Power article, regarding the ratings template and how to cite Robert Christgau's reviews: one review of the original album whose earliest known publication was in the 1981 book Christgau's Record Guide, and another review of the remixed album whose earliest known publication was in the Village Voice in 1997. Dan56 ( talk) 18:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm perplexed about this source, Something Else!. MarilynMansonFan96 suggested I use this to help cite glam rock on Marilyn Manson (band), and I get this is an album review, I haven't considered its context yet, I'm just concerned about reliability here. I looked at its about page - it has many people listed as well as authors, however the results turn out to be mostly troubling - they seem like they do this as some sort of side job and are not professionals. The only one I did find was their co-founder (who is no longer with them as of 2015), Nick DeRiso, which lists something rather promising; currently, his LinkedIn profile states:
I'm a veteran editor, writer and manager with more than three decades of experience in print and online publishing. Named columnist of the year five times by the Associated Press, Louisiana Press Association and Louisiana Sports Writers Association, I previously oversaw a daily section that was named Top 10 in the nation by the AP.
What do you guys think? I have no idea what to think of this source, what with its other co-founder being a pro at SQL programming rather than writing, and the above article's writer listing no specific experience. dannymusiceditor oops 14:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Is anyone good at the certification tables and charts? I'm trying to work on the section at Chinese Democracy and really have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to that. The charts table needs to be alphabetized by default and the certifications table needs to be expanded. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. RF23 ( talk) 17:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Should the article, Scorpion_(Drake_album) be removed? A lot of misleading unconfirmed information on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomasTomasTomas ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. There is an ongoing debate on the criteria for the one-hit wonders in America listings over here at Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States#Inclusion criteria. It'd be nice if we could get some more opinions on the matter. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintendoswitchfan ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:I'm Free (The Rolling Stones song) about a possible redirection of the article to Out of Our Heads -- Tyw7 ( ☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 15:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not MusicBrainz authority file numbers should be included in {{ authority control}} is currently discussed at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#MusicBrainz. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
![]()
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Scott Floman is cited as source in several album and song articles. [10] Although he is sometimes identified as a "music critic for Goldmine magazine", references for his quotes and album ratings do not mention Goldmine and link to archives of "sfloman.com" [11] or "South Florida Insurance Man". [12] A Goldmine search turned up one article that quotes him. [13] He is quoted once in Guitar World [14] (a similar quote is in " Easy Now") and has ten Daily Vault reviews from 1997–1998. [15] The rest seem to be from WP mirror sites.
He wrote a book, The Story of Rock and Soul Music: Album Reviews and Lists 1960–2016, that appears to be self-published. [16] [17] The way he is referenced in WP articles, it is not clear which of his reviews were professionally published (with some oversight) and which are from his own self-published book or website. How should he be considered a reliable source? — Ojorojo ( talk) 18:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It is about Indian soundtrack albums. Nowadays, instead of physical CDs, they compile all the tracks together and upload it to YouTube, calling them Audio Jukeboxes. Take this soundtrack album as an instance. The personnel has been provided in the YouTube's description box. All I did was port it to October (soundtrack). Since it is hard data from an official primary source, there is no copyright violation because it is fair use. Did I do the right thing? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 04:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I just discovered today that there is a switch parameter in the {{
WikiProject Albums}} template to denote unreferenced articles, I find that extremely unnecessary, there are currently only 7 pages in
Category:Unreferenced album articles compared with
over ten thousand articles that are applicable and I have been adding the {{
unreferenced}} tag to album articles for a while now and simply inserting the tag does not get the talk page placed in that category, so I think it should be removed. -
CHAMPION (
talk) (
contributions) (
logs) 03:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Music Story album ratings appear in a number of album articles (for example [18]). Most of the citations are to Acclaimed Music, a music review aggregation site apparently operated by one person. These only show ratings (1–5 stars) without reviews, writers, dates, etc. Some link to archived reviews for music-story.com [19] or are dead links. The WP Music Story link and the company's "about" page describe it as "an international music data provider" [20] and makes no mention of album reviews by professional music writers.
How is a reader supposed to know that Music Story may have been a RS for album reviews at one time or that Acclaimed Music is not just another website that includes self-published ratings (it does have ratings by
Piero Scaruffi,
[21] who is currently on the
WP:ALBUMAVOID list)?
A February 2017 discussion didn't produce a consensus. With several review/rating options available, WP should not have to resort to using sources of questionable reliability just for another star rating with no commentary to back it up. This might also apply to ratings by other reviewers that are found on Acclaimed Music.
—
Ojorojo (
talk) 19:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The Music Story article now shows that it is/was a RS for album reviews (I am tempted to remove the notability tag, but WP:ORG has a lot of criteria). Should we assume that all its reviews are OK (similar to AllMusic) or just the ones by certain authors? I'd be hesitant to use unattributed ratings for albums such as Yellow Submarine (I try to avoid similar AllMusic "overviews"). How to treat Acclaimed Music probably needs more input and a separate discussion. — Ojorojo ( talk) 16:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)