![]() | 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 55 | ← | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 |
Invisible Oranges is a heavy metal online music magazine that has been around since 2006. It has had at least fifty different writers over the years publishing articles. The website is currently used in over 200 music-related Wikipedia articles, mainly as sources, but also as review ratings and as direct links for quotes from interviews ( What Links Here). As another heavy metal blog of the same caliber, MetalSucks, is already listed as a reliable sources, would Invisible Oranges also qualify? LOCdataLKR44 ( talk) August 23, 2020, 12:00 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:Songs about this issue, which also applies to some album articles, I believe. Any interested editors, please weigh in at WT:SONG#Inclusion of charts-related lists in "See also" sections. JG66 ( talk) 11:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed recently that a lot of articles (particularly GA ones) have been using CelebMix as a source. Has there been a consensus as to whether or not it is actually considered reliable for use on Wikipedia? I have read previous discussions talking about it (mainly this and this), and most users seem to be against using the website, but it has not stopped others from using it: [1]. ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 09:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List of Shugo Chara! soundtracks#Merger proposal.
starship
.paint (
talk)
13:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quick question here. I’m all for the single or album chronologies in infoboxes. They help the reader navigate through an artists releases in order. Use them a lot. But it’s come to my attention that some artists use multiple ones. For example, it came up with Slipknot (band). If you check an album of theirs, let’s say, All Hope Is Gone. There’s both a “release chronology” and a “studio album chronology”. Is...that really necessary? Strikes me as overkill. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
You need extra chronology if there is a release in between two studio album releases. Take Taylor Swift as an example. If you look at Lover (album) (2019), there is a studio album chronology, and an extra chronology. This extra chronology is needed because of the release of her compilation album and one of her live albums. But if you look at 1989 (Taylor Swift album), we can clearly see one chronology because the chronology only included studio albums (Red [2012] and Reputation [2017]). Hope this clears things up as to why extra chronology is needed! Doggy54321 ( talk) 16:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
To me, it looks like we’ve got a loose consensus for limiting it to one chronology - probably the all-types of album/EP/Compilation type. And it’s only okay to have two if it’s like a collaborative album. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I would like to add uDiscoverMusic.com to the unreliable sources page as they state on their About Us page, "uDiscoverMusic.com is operated by Universal Music Group, the largest record label in the world and home to the greatest artists in history." It strikes me as a bias source, also the same could be applied to Ones To Watch as they are owened by Live Nation.
Any thoughs? MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 13:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Given the authors' individual credentials, I would use them. But given the publication's affiliations, I would follow WP:NIS and clearly identify the publication in text. (Martin Chilton, writing for Universal Records' music publication uDiscoverMusic, ...) Something like that. isento ( talk) 07:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
uDiscoverMusic.com is not suitable as it creates an edit conflict as its owned by record labels. I'd say, very limited use unless its commenting on something sourced elsewhere e.g. neilsen soundscan sales. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Letting every user that participated on this discussion to vote, so we can reach a consesus Doggy54321, Richard3120, JG66, Isento, TangoTizerWolfstone, Lil-unique1 and Sergecross73. Nevertheless, who hasn't participated is always welcome of course.
Is BrooklynVegan a reliable source? I've used it just a couple of times, but have read in AfDs, for example, that some editors consider it to be reliable. Thanks. Caro7200 ( talk) 15:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
So I recently got access to Rock's Backpages and it seems like a great source for older magazine articles. There's one catch. In an ironic twist, Rock's Backpages doesn't actually list page numbers. It lists the publication, the date, and author, but no page numbers. So what do I do? Famous Hobo ( talk) 01:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I am wondering if this website is considered reliable or not. This is their staff list, the date says 2007 but it is different from earlier versions of the page. [4] [5] Most of the site's content as of right now (at least the album/track reviews) is written by associate editor Ted Chase, though this wasn't the case originally. Occasionally, there are other people who write instead. [6] [7] [8] [9] It also looks like it was cited once by Goldmine. Any thoughts? ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 07:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I have been under the impression since 2017 that Headline Planet is an unreliable source and should not be used in music articles. I thusly tagged 2 uses of it in the article for Taylor Swift's Folklore album but my tags were removed earlier today and I was told that because their reporting on Apple Music and Spotify info is accurate it stands as a valid reference. But to me this directly contradicts what I was orig told when I first started editing/my seeing other editors remove it as a ref from various articles over the years as per edit histories and talk pages. But a quick wikipedia search just now showed me tons of 2020 music articles repeatedly citing it. I would appreciate some clarification on the matter. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 03:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @ AshMusique: in this discussion, since his edits was in the diffs. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 03:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Would some members from WP:ALBUM mind taking a look at the soundtrack for The Apple (1980 film) and assessing it per WP:NALBUM? If the soundtrack is notable on its own, then it probably should be split off into its own stand-alone article. I came across this while checking on some non-free movie soundtrack album covers per WP:FILMSCORE, and this particular seciton seems to be more developed and better sourced than most other similar sections about soundtracks in film articles. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Following comments here and at Talk:Sour Candy (Lady Gaga and Blackpink song)#Sour Candy - a single?, I propose formally adding this publication to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Unreliable sources. Any objections? At the very least, it's subpar for release dates, and certainly not as authoritative as ARIA or even Noise11 for Australia-related music matters. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 14:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, fellow project members! Sorry if this has been asked before, but I couldn't find anything in the archives. Sometimes, when I search for sources that I can use on an album article, I receive mostly reviews as results. Do these reviews alone (if coming from reputable and relevant sources, obviously) make the article ok per WP:NALBUM? Or is it imperative that I present references announcing the album, discussing its production, interviewing the musicians involved, etc? I mean, of course some of this information may be found on reviews too, but I'm just unsure if reviews alone count as "covered by multiple sources". Happy editing, Victor Lopes Fala!• C 01:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
It's used on articles for synth gear, but it doesn't have the smell of a great source to me. Assessing what counts as a reliable source isn't one of my great strengths though. Popcornfud ( talk) 14:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Rolling Stone have today published a new updated version of their 500 Greatest Albums list... just a heads up that the list on this page will have to be revised and updated to take account of this. Warning for those of a nervous disposition: the new list includes former One Direction members. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Alright, that took forever, but the updated list is done. You can find it here. With the updated list, we added nine new good articles and featured articles, so yay! Famous Hobo ( talk) 21:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Just a heads up, a lot of Rolling Stone articles seem to only be accessible now if you're a subscriber. For example, this review used to be freely accessible, but now in order to read it you must be a subscriber. Which sucks... Famous Hobo ( talk) 22:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Alright, so I’m looking for advice on something. I mostly work on rock band stuff where these sort of issues don’t occur. But I recently started working on content related to Machine Gun Kelly because he put out a rock album last week.
Now, let’s say I’m writing about Tool (band) like I normally do. If I were writing prose, I’d write something like " Maynard James Keenan fronts Tool. Keenan also fronts A Perfect Circle. Also, Keenan makes wine." Full name on first mention, last name only on subsequent mentions.
So my question is, do we handle it the same way when an artist goes by a more abstract name like “Machine Gun Kelly”? I wasn’t sure if the “full name first, last name subsequent mentions" applied to a more abstract name. I mean, I’m pretty sure his name isn’t meant to be taken as First Name: Machine Middle Name: Gun Last Name: Kelly. It’s not like anyone calls him “Machine” informally or "Mr Kelly" formally. Or maybe that doesn’t matter? But writing out the full name is tedious. His legal name is Colson Baker, so "Baker" could be used. But I don’t think he’s really known by that either.
For what it’s worth, most of his stuff on Wikipedia isn’t very well done, so I wouldn’t put much stock in what’s been done in the past. The closest comparison I could think of - Kid Rock - is also in pretty awful shape, so that’s not really helpful either.
Thoughts? Input? Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Hi, I wondered if this Chinese website was reliable or not for record sales (see the list of best-selling albums in China, for example). As far as I can say, y.saoju.net is dedicated to new digital albums and concert informations. Also, I've been unable to find any information about record sales or equivalent track streams on the website, so I'm guessing it is unreliable and that it should be listed under Wikipedia:Record charts#Websites to avoid. Synthwave.94 ( talk) 02:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Wondering if other editors remove info from album articles about song appearances. They always strike me more as trivia, even if they're sourced--and they usually aren't. You know: this song was in video game X, this no-name band covered it on this release, this song can be heard in the strip club scene of movie Z. Thanks. Caro7200 ( talk) 20:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
What defines an EP as opposed to an album on Wikipedia? If we use the definition of an EP as a recording with more than three tracks and/or that is longer than 10 minutes but shorter than 30, then why is Alien Love Secrets by Steve Vai considered an EP and not an album? Why is Wish You Were Here an album instead of an EP? JJPMaster ( talk) 14:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
This question is in the same vein of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_61#De-linking_"rock,"_"singer-songwriter"?, which like this was also posted in response to Tony1's repeated delinking changes at Love for Sale (Bilal album) ( [12], [13], [14]), citing MOS:LINK. Prior to that first thread I posted here, I had been told by Tony1 to "go away" from his talk page. So I'd rather raise the question here again.
I understand the guideline cautioning against linking everyday words, commonly understood terms, etc. ( WP:OVERLINK). But, while I'm not as sure about "single" (unless, like JG66 said before, there's contextual significance discussed in the article in which it's linked), "arrangement" really seems like a technical term the average person won't get -- I think many editors here even may not know what it exactly means off the top of their head. The article for arrangement even needed the lead's defining first sentence to be verified directly with a citation. isento ( talk) 09:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I made a few changes to WP:ALBUMSTYLE, so I figured I would make a post here to get feedback and provide visibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Albums%2FAlbum_article_style_advice&type=revision&diff=985486249&oldid=983936835 ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thrashocore.com describes itself as a "brutal metal webzine". I have seen it used before as RS for album reviews, however, zines are, by definition, WP:SPS. Would anyone object to it being listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID? -- TheSandDoctor Talk 23:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
metal-experience.com describes itself as an "up and coming webzine". I have seen it used before as RS for album reviews, however, Zines are, by definition, WP:SPS. Would anyone object to it being listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID? -- TheSandDoctor Talk 22:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
PopMatters seems to be undergoing some major changes and I think they've drastically cut their staff (at least, compared to what I remember from a few years back). All the site's articles currently carry the statement: "PopMatters is moving to WordPress. We will publish a few essays daily while we develop the new site. We hope the beta will be up sometime late next week." The move to WordPress will surely affect how editors view PM in terms of reliability – ie, if it's a blog, it most likely no longer meets our requirements.
Just a heads-up. Obviously this needs to be addressed on the list of reliable sources, but also, editors might like to ensure we've got archived versions of the site's content in our articles. A concern I have is that when PopMatters moves over, it might not be possible to ascertain the pre-blog-era articles at the new location if the original publication dates are omitted, and we might have major problems in years to come when editors view PM as "just a blog". But at least if the current versions of PM articles and reviews are archived at Wayback, and that "PopMatters is moving to WordPress ..." statement appears, our references catch the site pre-blog and should satisfy any non-RS issues in years to come. (That is, unless the PM articles are already archived at Wayback, of course, going back years perhaps – in which case, all's good.) JG66 ( talk) 08:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys, I am currently working on MCMXC a.D., an album by Enigma. I am trying to get it to Good Article status. I know that the sections below songs are full of little content, especially critical reception. I also know that the songs section is full of original research. It is still a lot of effort so I am curious if they are people willing to help. If you think you can help with the article in any way, feel free to do so. Lazman321 ( talk) 01:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Seen these most recently in some Jesus Lizard album articles (and Jesus Jones...although not Jesus and Mary Chain [we are all so very old]). I've removed Spectrum Culture in the past, and OndaRock is linked to an Italian journalist, I think. They don't appear reliable... Caro7200 ( talk) 20:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Ondarock Thoughts on it: The website’s Director, Claudio Fabretti, has an education and long background in Journalism. Editor Giuliano Dellipaoli has written for music publications in the past, including a paper/print magazine, which we generally consider reliable. Fabio G has a similar background. I wouldn’t be so quick to write this one off. Kind of like “blogs”, “zines” aren’t really a good sign, but they’re not a auto-fail either. There could be potential here. Sergecross73 msg me 02:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Steven Universe: The Movie § Split soundtrack into its own article. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
08:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Was reading Earthandsky and found a 10/10 review from a publication I've never heard of. It is listed neither in the reliable nor unreliable list. Here [17] is the website itself and here [18] is the review in question. dannymusiceditor oops 19:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The " About Us" describes them as "a website focused on bolstering and highlighting an array of diverse and fresh talent in entertainment criticism." I have seen reviews from this website being used across music articles and I'm highly concerned about its reliability. Seems like its a self-published source that could be included in WP:NOTRSMUSIC? -- Ashley yoursmile! 14:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
As suggested in Template_talk:Certification_Table_Entry#Brazilian_certifications, I'll bring the issue forward here. It often occurs that Brazilian record labels claim their artists' records have been certified in Brazil, but said certifications do not appear on Pro-Música Brasil's website. The source used to validate those plaques are the labels' posts on their very own social media accounts. Are these certifications to be considered valid, when they aren't recognized by the national recording industry association? ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 23:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I found a discussion from 2015 that said it was unreliable and that it was added to the list, however, it's no longer there. It currently is on neither list. They do have an about us page (nice) [26], and here [27] is an example of a review from them. I just want to make sure it's still ok. dannymusiceditor oops 19:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, there is a reliable sources noticeboard discussion about this musicians source at WP:RSN#Is ArtistDirect a reliable source, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The majority of information on ABC News Radio seems to only contain press releases for new music and televised events, which subsequently acts as a wire service. In addition, an enquiry at Talk:ABC News Radio#Official website for ABC News Radio suggested that the website is not legitimate, as the company's social media pages redirect to ABC News Go and ABC Audio. Can there be any considerable arguments made to prove authenticity and reliability for the website, or should it be avoided when adding sources? — Angryjoe1111 ( talk) 08:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Vmavanti ( talk · contribs) and I have a disagreement regarding whether catalog numbers should be included in album articles. I believe that they can be included, in that they provide information regarding who the album was marketed to, release dates, and formats, all of which I consider encyclopedic information and particularly useful for pre-digital releases. Given that there is no equivalence for ISBN numbers for sound recordings, it also helps with verifiability. However, as I tire arguing about it with a single user, I am seeking broader consensus. Should catalog numbers be removed from album articles? What do other editors thing? Thank you. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 15:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Would We Are Movie Geeks be considered unreliable? [28] The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 03:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey all. Would this be considered a reliable source? Sounblab.com. Thanks! – zmbro ( talk) 21:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I know Album of the Year (website) came up here a year back – Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 59#Album of the Year. Just recently AOTY ratings have been added at a few Beatles FAs and GAs. The 2019 discussion seemed to wrap up with general disapproval of the site, which I agree with. Apart from the user-generated aspect, it seems to me that the AOTY album pages are either extremely limited in their scope and/or users can and do add in their choice of high-scoring professional reviews. The site also appears to have no qualms about adding user reviews from sputnikmusic, I notice (eg for Rubber Soul).
Most of Wikipedia's article on the site isn't sourced at all. And the statement there that No Ripcord often uses AOTY ratings is only supported by a tweet saying "Want to keep track of all of our 2015 review scores? The folks at @aoty got you covered. One worth bookmarking." – which would suggest that AOTY often "uses" No Ripcord, not the other way round.
Personally, I can't see why we're using it – the site doesn't seem any more professionally run than Discogs or WhoSampled, there's no list of staff or evidence of editorial oversight, and nor do AOTY ratings appear to be particularly notable. It's as if someone started the site (probably pulling content in from Wikipedia(?)), the article on AOTY appeared here after two rejections at AfC and it's still arguably unworthy of inclusion, yet some editors have jumped on board and use it as yet another score/ratings toy. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, no? ... Any thoughts out there? JG66 ( talk) 20:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WP:RSN about this source. Please contribute and/or clarify my request as necessary. — Torchiest talk edits 00:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Sergecross73: @ JG66: Can we considered adding AOTY at WP:ALBUMAVOID now? The discussion is archived. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 06:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I've replaced the Pitchfork review link on the page for VHS or Beta's Le Funk album with the Internet Archive version of the URL. I've verified that the replacement link is clickable, but I haven't dug into the Wikipedia's IA policy/style guidelines, so my edit may not line up with Wikipedia best practices. So, posting an FYI here, in case anyone feels like checking my work. There's a strong possibility that I will forget all about this soon, and never look back here for replies.
Bsammon ( talk) 05:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am a new user. I'd like to edit the page about this album. I want to check the rules because I am someone who is quoted on this page. I was there during the recording and have what I believe is a clear memory about it. For example I absolutely know that Jim Walker was not singing on Fodderstompf - he'd left hours before, yet credited with vocals. The quote relating to my own name is fine but the entry reads as if I was 'Roadie 2004'. I made the comments in 2004 but worked for PiL in 1978-1980.
So it's about verification by first hand experience rather than citation. I understand why there must be guidance. Thelisteninghand ( talk) 18:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
OK Thanks all. There are problems with the page - the title being the first. The band is Public Image Limited and the album is 'Public Image' a tricky one as the single has the same name and the album is always known as 'First Issue' but it is factually incorrect. Re: Jim Walker singing, this is a false claim and has no citation or evidence, it should be deleted even if I can't show he wasn't there, no-one can show that he was. It is self evident in any case as he is Canadian and the accents on 'Fodderstompf' could not have come from him, there are only three voices: Wobble, Levene, Lydon. Re: "I was there" there is documentary evidence that I was PiL's roadie on Fodderstompf.com, and photo of myself and Lydon at the Manor. Not sure how to do hyperlinks now but can show this. However I fully accept and understand that I cannot simpy remember my own version! But the page already quotes me as being present during the recording of the song 'Fodderstompf". If that is permitted then I already have verification I think. Thelisteninghand ( talk) 16:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, there is a reliable sources noticeboard discussion about this source at WP:RSN#Is Metalreviews.com a reliable source imv, Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Interesting questions above which you might want to get involved with around "listicles" and mid-year lists. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I have created a search engine meant to search for reliable sources for music articles. The sources were taken from WP:RSMUSIC. It currently does not have any other source from any other project. It can be found here. Should it be added to WP:MUSIC/SOURCES? Lazman321 ( talk) 21:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
metallized.it describes itself as "the independent webzine for metal in Italy". By definition, Zines are WP:SPS. Would anyone object to this site being listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID as SPS? -- TheSandDoctor Talk 22:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Stormbringer.at describes itself as "The Austrian Heavyzine". By definition, Zines are WP:SPS. Would anyone object to this site being listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID as SPS? -- TheSandDoctor Talk 22:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Requesting a review of these sources for the purposes of writing about electronic instruments and production gear:
I'm often fighting off attempts to add poorly sourced content to articles on these subjects, so it would be good establish a longer list of acceptable and unacceptable sources for WP:RSINSTRUMENT. Popcornfud ( talk) 16:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I see Resident Advisor is listed as a reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronic_music/Sources, though there's no discussion linked, which always makes me slightly suspicious. I also think there might be some useful work to be done in combining these lists of sources. Perhaps sources concerning musical instruments or music production would be better in other WikiProjects (eg electronic music or musical instruments) than the albums project? Popcornfud ( talk) 14:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox album has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the
discussion page. Thank you.
Sock
(tock talk)
01:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
With the changes in music consumption patterns came changes in music recording certification standards, which in turn require changes in they way these certifications are listed, which is mostly through {{ certification Table Entry}}. Editors who are interested in how these changes are going to be implemented are invited to contribute to the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Misc denotation. -- Muhandes ( talk) 08:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Would Just Jared Jr be considered reliable? The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 01:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
User talk:Sergecross73 The link to the website is not working. Here is the message I got:
Error: Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.
To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save. Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. goo.gl, t.co, youtu.be, bit.ly), you may still be able to save your changes by using the direct, non-shortened link - you generally obtain the non-shortened link by following the link, and copying the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded. Links containing google.com/url? are resulting from a copy/paste from the result page of a Google search - please follow the link on the result page, and copy/paste the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded, or click here to convert the link. If you feel the link is needed, you can: Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you). Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page. Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia. The following link has triggered a protection filter: justjaredjr.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.
Solutions:
If the url used is a url shortener/redirect, please use the full url in its place, for example, use youtube.com rather than youtu.be, If the url is a google url, please look to use the (full) original source, not the google shortcut or its alternative. Look to find an alternative url that is considered authoritative. The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 04:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I most definitely wouldn't recommend using this when it's a gossip site. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 20:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Turbo-folk compilation albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 15:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Chalga compilation albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 16:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Compilation albums by Bulgarian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 16:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Are lists like List of Varèse Sarabande albums acceptable under current Wikipedia inclusion criteria? Spiderone 15:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of recordings made at Abbey Road Studios
FYI. postdlf ( talk) 20:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question related to the style of presenting television soundtrack album(s) and single(s). For example, in Crash Landing on You#Original soundtrack, I have presented the album and singles under different heading. But in other articles, like Itaewon Class#Original soundtrack, there is no such demarcation. Also I have seen, like in Parasite (2019 film)#Music, single is listed within the infobox. So, what is the correct or the best way to present the soundtrack when single(s) are released individually prior to the release of album and then again as a part of an album. -ink&fables «talk» 14:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
In the case of List of Such-And-Such Year Albums articles (e.g. List of 2020 albums), where only one reference appears per entry, would a ref to that album's Metacritic page be a good enough source for establishing notability? Asked User:Mburrell about this ( Discussion found here) and they took the stance that it doesn't. I wouldn't be surprised if there turns out to be a consensus in agreement with that stance, but it never hurts to ask anyway. QuietHere ( talk) 03:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if anyone was looking to renominate Kanye West studio albums as a Good Topic. It is currently demoted at Wikipedia:Former featured topics as Yeezus didnt reach GA in time to prevent it from demotion. Since Yeezus, The Life of Pablo, Ye, Kids See Ghosts, and Jesus Is King are all Good Articles, I think this can be reinstated as a Good Topic. As I did not do any of these GAs, I thought I leave a note here. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 19:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Should the order, for both songs and albums, be
...
or
...
In the first, I think it's kinda awkward for the aesthetic to find boxes so early in the article, while in the second "Industry awards" includes fan-voted awards.
Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 17:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Here's another stylization issue. A subject about which can never make up my mind.
Check out FeelingPulledApartByHorses/TheHollowEarth, a double single by Thom Yorke. Until recently these song titles were written out conventionally as "Feeling Pulled Apart By Horses" and "The Hollow Earth", but Hostagecat renamed the article, reflecting how the song titles are listed on streaming services. This isn't how they're described in reliable sources such as Rolling Stone or Pitchfork. My inclination is that we should just write them out normally (and my personal editorial preference is to do that) but I'm not sure. Popcornfud ( talk) 14:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
The released date of Joe Walsh's There Goes The Neighborhood album, March 10, 1981 is incorrect. The correct release date is May 15, 1981. www.45worlds.com/vinyl/album/5e523 You'll have to write this www.45worlds.com/vinyl/album/5e523 address down on a piece of paper and type it in because it's black instead of blue. It's suppose to be blue so that you can click on it and it would take you to that page. But because the address refuses to turn blue for some reason, You'll have to write it down and type it in and it should take to the album's page on 45worlds. ( Jeckylback ( talk) 03:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)):
Decoded (EP) is an EP with a couple singles, one of which was remixed and the other was released as an "EP" with three remixes. I assume these should all be listed in the track listing section, but I'm not exactly sure how. Can any project members help here? Much appreciated! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 05:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed content like this being added to album articles. I have seen content like it ("this is the last album on which ...", or, "this is the only album...", or "this is the first...") added and removed. I don't know of a policy or guideline. It's usually removed because it is trivia. It certainly makes sense in the article on the artist, but does it make sense in the album article? Is it WP:OR (in which case it does not belong) or is it WP:CALC (in which case it's acceptable)? Obviously, if two or more sources write about this, it makes sense to include it with references. Suggestions? How have you responded to this sort of content? Have you added content like this? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 10:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:RSN on the Needle Drop should be considered as reliable or unreliable. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 12:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure this is in the archives, but...an editor advised that punctuation in song titles goes outside the quotation marks. The editor linked to MOS:INOROUT. Is this a "real" rule? I don't particularly care, and only put inside due to American stylization norms, I guess. Rolling Stone, Spin, etc., do so as well. Not talking about British sentence structure, which I follow if that's established, just song titles in American articles specifically. Thanks. Caro7200 ( talk) 14:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This draft was up for G13 deletion but I think it was simply WP:TOOSOON as the album was released June 26th and the draft created on the 28th. Posting a note here in case anyone is interested in developing it into an article, if possible. S0091 ( talk) 18:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
A RfC has begun at WP:RSN regarding Anthony Fantano's reviews should be count as reliable. Please add your comments there if interested. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 02:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, there is a discussion at WP:RSN#The Von Pip Musical Express as to the reliability of this music blog, imv Atlantic306 ( talk)
The list of ongoing FFD discussions:
-- George Ho ( talk) 22:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello to all, I'm preparing an article about an album by a Finnish musician that was first released in Finnish and later re-recorded (the vocals, at least) and re-released in English. Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, should the article title be the album's original name (Mustan Sydämen Rovio) or the official English name (Pyre of the Black Heart)? Victor Lopes Fala!• C 16:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this is a very basic question - I'm not super familiar with how they run as far as reliability and verifiability. I couldn't find them on RSP, so I figured I'd check. -- a lad insane (channel two) 03:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I was baffled to discover a hefty paragraph sourced entirely by Headline Planet at the Drivers License (song) article, especially after the lengthy discussion about this a few months back as well as its inclusion on WP:ALBUMAVOID. Also seeing it used multiple times on Folklore (Taylor Swift album) and Evermore (Taylor Swift album). Can someone have a look at the discussion and confirm that we've ruled out all usage of HP, or are there certain exceptions?-- N Ø 11:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Based on
headlineplanet.com
, should we move this up to RSN and request to have it blacklisted?
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
08:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I have added it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Headline Planet. Feel free to add your voices there. I have noticed that if no one comments on proposals like this, the proposals die. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
A lot of the non-notable information about WP:SINGLEVENDOR charts seems to have been re-added to the Drivers License (song) article using Music Feeds as a source. The wikipedia article about the site looks overly promotional, the About Us page invites random people to write articles, as well as press releases. Bottom of the site says that it is "a property of Mandatory, an Evolve Media, LLC company". Where do we stand on this one?-- N Ø 10:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This edit by User:Stackler adds a reference to an interview hosted on Rate Your Music. RYM is a deprecated source, and the edit is tagged as such, but all the discussions/documentation about RYM's deprecation seem to center other parts of the website and not necessarily whatever segment hosts this interview. Are RYM interviews an exception, or are they also unreliable? Was that judgment already made and I just missed it? Either way, the documentation should be updated to clarify this. QuietHere ( talk) 08:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Adore (album) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – zmbro ( talk) 23:51, 20 January 2021 (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 55 | ← | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 |
Invisible Oranges is a heavy metal online music magazine that has been around since 2006. It has had at least fifty different writers over the years publishing articles. The website is currently used in over 200 music-related Wikipedia articles, mainly as sources, but also as review ratings and as direct links for quotes from interviews ( What Links Here). As another heavy metal blog of the same caliber, MetalSucks, is already listed as a reliable sources, would Invisible Oranges also qualify? LOCdataLKR44 ( talk) August 23, 2020, 12:00 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:Songs about this issue, which also applies to some album articles, I believe. Any interested editors, please weigh in at WT:SONG#Inclusion of charts-related lists in "See also" sections. JG66 ( talk) 11:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed recently that a lot of articles (particularly GA ones) have been using CelebMix as a source. Has there been a consensus as to whether or not it is actually considered reliable for use on Wikipedia? I have read previous discussions talking about it (mainly this and this), and most users seem to be against using the website, but it has not stopped others from using it: [1]. ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 09:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List of Shugo Chara! soundtracks#Merger proposal.
starship
.paint (
talk)
13:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quick question here. I’m all for the single or album chronologies in infoboxes. They help the reader navigate through an artists releases in order. Use them a lot. But it’s come to my attention that some artists use multiple ones. For example, it came up with Slipknot (band). If you check an album of theirs, let’s say, All Hope Is Gone. There’s both a “release chronology” and a “studio album chronology”. Is...that really necessary? Strikes me as overkill. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
You need extra chronology if there is a release in between two studio album releases. Take Taylor Swift as an example. If you look at Lover (album) (2019), there is a studio album chronology, and an extra chronology. This extra chronology is needed because of the release of her compilation album and one of her live albums. But if you look at 1989 (Taylor Swift album), we can clearly see one chronology because the chronology only included studio albums (Red [2012] and Reputation [2017]). Hope this clears things up as to why extra chronology is needed! Doggy54321 ( talk) 16:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
To me, it looks like we’ve got a loose consensus for limiting it to one chronology - probably the all-types of album/EP/Compilation type. And it’s only okay to have two if it’s like a collaborative album. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I would like to add uDiscoverMusic.com to the unreliable sources page as they state on their About Us page, "uDiscoverMusic.com is operated by Universal Music Group, the largest record label in the world and home to the greatest artists in history." It strikes me as a bias source, also the same could be applied to Ones To Watch as they are owened by Live Nation.
Any thoughs? MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 13:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Given the authors' individual credentials, I would use them. But given the publication's affiliations, I would follow WP:NIS and clearly identify the publication in text. (Martin Chilton, writing for Universal Records' music publication uDiscoverMusic, ...) Something like that. isento ( talk) 07:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
uDiscoverMusic.com is not suitable as it creates an edit conflict as its owned by record labels. I'd say, very limited use unless its commenting on something sourced elsewhere e.g. neilsen soundscan sales. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Letting every user that participated on this discussion to vote, so we can reach a consesus Doggy54321, Richard3120, JG66, Isento, TangoTizerWolfstone, Lil-unique1 and Sergecross73. Nevertheless, who hasn't participated is always welcome of course.
Is BrooklynVegan a reliable source? I've used it just a couple of times, but have read in AfDs, for example, that some editors consider it to be reliable. Thanks. Caro7200 ( talk) 15:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
So I recently got access to Rock's Backpages and it seems like a great source for older magazine articles. There's one catch. In an ironic twist, Rock's Backpages doesn't actually list page numbers. It lists the publication, the date, and author, but no page numbers. So what do I do? Famous Hobo ( talk) 01:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I am wondering if this website is considered reliable or not. This is their staff list, the date says 2007 but it is different from earlier versions of the page. [4] [5] Most of the site's content as of right now (at least the album/track reviews) is written by associate editor Ted Chase, though this wasn't the case originally. Occasionally, there are other people who write instead. [6] [7] [8] [9] It also looks like it was cited once by Goldmine. Any thoughts? ThedancingMOONpolice ( talk) 07:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I have been under the impression since 2017 that Headline Planet is an unreliable source and should not be used in music articles. I thusly tagged 2 uses of it in the article for Taylor Swift's Folklore album but my tags were removed earlier today and I was told that because their reporting on Apple Music and Spotify info is accurate it stands as a valid reference. But to me this directly contradicts what I was orig told when I first started editing/my seeing other editors remove it as a ref from various articles over the years as per edit histories and talk pages. But a quick wikipedia search just now showed me tons of 2020 music articles repeatedly citing it. I would appreciate some clarification on the matter. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 03:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @ AshMusique: in this discussion, since his edits was in the diffs. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 03:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Would some members from WP:ALBUM mind taking a look at the soundtrack for The Apple (1980 film) and assessing it per WP:NALBUM? If the soundtrack is notable on its own, then it probably should be split off into its own stand-alone article. I came across this while checking on some non-free movie soundtrack album covers per WP:FILMSCORE, and this particular seciton seems to be more developed and better sourced than most other similar sections about soundtracks in film articles. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Following comments here and at Talk:Sour Candy (Lady Gaga and Blackpink song)#Sour Candy - a single?, I propose formally adding this publication to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Unreliable sources. Any objections? At the very least, it's subpar for release dates, and certainly not as authoritative as ARIA or even Noise11 for Australia-related music matters. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 14:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, fellow project members! Sorry if this has been asked before, but I couldn't find anything in the archives. Sometimes, when I search for sources that I can use on an album article, I receive mostly reviews as results. Do these reviews alone (if coming from reputable and relevant sources, obviously) make the article ok per WP:NALBUM? Or is it imperative that I present references announcing the album, discussing its production, interviewing the musicians involved, etc? I mean, of course some of this information may be found on reviews too, but I'm just unsure if reviews alone count as "covered by multiple sources". Happy editing, Victor Lopes Fala!• C 01:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
It's used on articles for synth gear, but it doesn't have the smell of a great source to me. Assessing what counts as a reliable source isn't one of my great strengths though. Popcornfud ( talk) 14:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Rolling Stone have today published a new updated version of their 500 Greatest Albums list... just a heads up that the list on this page will have to be revised and updated to take account of this. Warning for those of a nervous disposition: the new list includes former One Direction members. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Alright, that took forever, but the updated list is done. You can find it here. With the updated list, we added nine new good articles and featured articles, so yay! Famous Hobo ( talk) 21:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Just a heads up, a lot of Rolling Stone articles seem to only be accessible now if you're a subscriber. For example, this review used to be freely accessible, but now in order to read it you must be a subscriber. Which sucks... Famous Hobo ( talk) 22:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Alright, so I’m looking for advice on something. I mostly work on rock band stuff where these sort of issues don’t occur. But I recently started working on content related to Machine Gun Kelly because he put out a rock album last week.
Now, let’s say I’m writing about Tool (band) like I normally do. If I were writing prose, I’d write something like " Maynard James Keenan fronts Tool. Keenan also fronts A Perfect Circle. Also, Keenan makes wine." Full name on first mention, last name only on subsequent mentions.
So my question is, do we handle it the same way when an artist goes by a more abstract name like “Machine Gun Kelly”? I wasn’t sure if the “full name first, last name subsequent mentions" applied to a more abstract name. I mean, I’m pretty sure his name isn’t meant to be taken as First Name: Machine Middle Name: Gun Last Name: Kelly. It’s not like anyone calls him “Machine” informally or "Mr Kelly" formally. Or maybe that doesn’t matter? But writing out the full name is tedious. His legal name is Colson Baker, so "Baker" could be used. But I don’t think he’s really known by that either.
For what it’s worth, most of his stuff on Wikipedia isn’t very well done, so I wouldn’t put much stock in what’s been done in the past. The closest comparison I could think of - Kid Rock - is also in pretty awful shape, so that’s not really helpful either.
Thoughts? Input? Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Hi, I wondered if this Chinese website was reliable or not for record sales (see the list of best-selling albums in China, for example). As far as I can say, y.saoju.net is dedicated to new digital albums and concert informations. Also, I've been unable to find any information about record sales or equivalent track streams on the website, so I'm guessing it is unreliable and that it should be listed under Wikipedia:Record charts#Websites to avoid. Synthwave.94 ( talk) 02:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Wondering if other editors remove info from album articles about song appearances. They always strike me more as trivia, even if they're sourced--and they usually aren't. You know: this song was in video game X, this no-name band covered it on this release, this song can be heard in the strip club scene of movie Z. Thanks. Caro7200 ( talk) 20:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
What defines an EP as opposed to an album on Wikipedia? If we use the definition of an EP as a recording with more than three tracks and/or that is longer than 10 minutes but shorter than 30, then why is Alien Love Secrets by Steve Vai considered an EP and not an album? Why is Wish You Were Here an album instead of an EP? JJPMaster ( talk) 14:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
This question is in the same vein of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_61#De-linking_"rock,"_"singer-songwriter"?, which like this was also posted in response to Tony1's repeated delinking changes at Love for Sale (Bilal album) ( [12], [13], [14]), citing MOS:LINK. Prior to that first thread I posted here, I had been told by Tony1 to "go away" from his talk page. So I'd rather raise the question here again.
I understand the guideline cautioning against linking everyday words, commonly understood terms, etc. ( WP:OVERLINK). But, while I'm not as sure about "single" (unless, like JG66 said before, there's contextual significance discussed in the article in which it's linked), "arrangement" really seems like a technical term the average person won't get -- I think many editors here even may not know what it exactly means off the top of their head. The article for arrangement even needed the lead's defining first sentence to be verified directly with a citation. isento ( talk) 09:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I made a few changes to WP:ALBUMSTYLE, so I figured I would make a post here to get feedback and provide visibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Albums%2FAlbum_article_style_advice&type=revision&diff=985486249&oldid=983936835 ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thrashocore.com describes itself as a "brutal metal webzine". I have seen it used before as RS for album reviews, however, zines are, by definition, WP:SPS. Would anyone object to it being listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID? -- TheSandDoctor Talk 23:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
metal-experience.com describes itself as an "up and coming webzine". I have seen it used before as RS for album reviews, however, Zines are, by definition, WP:SPS. Would anyone object to it being listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID? -- TheSandDoctor Talk 22:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
PopMatters seems to be undergoing some major changes and I think they've drastically cut their staff (at least, compared to what I remember from a few years back). All the site's articles currently carry the statement: "PopMatters is moving to WordPress. We will publish a few essays daily while we develop the new site. We hope the beta will be up sometime late next week." The move to WordPress will surely affect how editors view PM in terms of reliability – ie, if it's a blog, it most likely no longer meets our requirements.
Just a heads-up. Obviously this needs to be addressed on the list of reliable sources, but also, editors might like to ensure we've got archived versions of the site's content in our articles. A concern I have is that when PopMatters moves over, it might not be possible to ascertain the pre-blog-era articles at the new location if the original publication dates are omitted, and we might have major problems in years to come when editors view PM as "just a blog". But at least if the current versions of PM articles and reviews are archived at Wayback, and that "PopMatters is moving to WordPress ..." statement appears, our references catch the site pre-blog and should satisfy any non-RS issues in years to come. (That is, unless the PM articles are already archived at Wayback, of course, going back years perhaps – in which case, all's good.) JG66 ( talk) 08:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys, I am currently working on MCMXC a.D., an album by Enigma. I am trying to get it to Good Article status. I know that the sections below songs are full of little content, especially critical reception. I also know that the songs section is full of original research. It is still a lot of effort so I am curious if they are people willing to help. If you think you can help with the article in any way, feel free to do so. Lazman321 ( talk) 01:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Seen these most recently in some Jesus Lizard album articles (and Jesus Jones...although not Jesus and Mary Chain [we are all so very old]). I've removed Spectrum Culture in the past, and OndaRock is linked to an Italian journalist, I think. They don't appear reliable... Caro7200 ( talk) 20:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Ondarock Thoughts on it: The website’s Director, Claudio Fabretti, has an education and long background in Journalism. Editor Giuliano Dellipaoli has written for music publications in the past, including a paper/print magazine, which we generally consider reliable. Fabio G has a similar background. I wouldn’t be so quick to write this one off. Kind of like “blogs”, “zines” aren’t really a good sign, but they’re not a auto-fail either. There could be potential here. Sergecross73 msg me 02:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Steven Universe: The Movie § Split soundtrack into its own article. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
08:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Was reading Earthandsky and found a 10/10 review from a publication I've never heard of. It is listed neither in the reliable nor unreliable list. Here [17] is the website itself and here [18] is the review in question. dannymusiceditor oops 19:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The " About Us" describes them as "a website focused on bolstering and highlighting an array of diverse and fresh talent in entertainment criticism." I have seen reviews from this website being used across music articles and I'm highly concerned about its reliability. Seems like its a self-published source that could be included in WP:NOTRSMUSIC? -- Ashley yoursmile! 14:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
As suggested in Template_talk:Certification_Table_Entry#Brazilian_certifications, I'll bring the issue forward here. It often occurs that Brazilian record labels claim their artists' records have been certified in Brazil, but said certifications do not appear on Pro-Música Brasil's website. The source used to validate those plaques are the labels' posts on their very own social media accounts. Are these certifications to be considered valid, when they aren't recognized by the national recording industry association? ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 23:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I found a discussion from 2015 that said it was unreliable and that it was added to the list, however, it's no longer there. It currently is on neither list. They do have an about us page (nice) [26], and here [27] is an example of a review from them. I just want to make sure it's still ok. dannymusiceditor oops 19:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, there is a reliable sources noticeboard discussion about this musicians source at WP:RSN#Is ArtistDirect a reliable source, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The majority of information on ABC News Radio seems to only contain press releases for new music and televised events, which subsequently acts as a wire service. In addition, an enquiry at Talk:ABC News Radio#Official website for ABC News Radio suggested that the website is not legitimate, as the company's social media pages redirect to ABC News Go and ABC Audio. Can there be any considerable arguments made to prove authenticity and reliability for the website, or should it be avoided when adding sources? — Angryjoe1111 ( talk) 08:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Vmavanti ( talk · contribs) and I have a disagreement regarding whether catalog numbers should be included in album articles. I believe that they can be included, in that they provide information regarding who the album was marketed to, release dates, and formats, all of which I consider encyclopedic information and particularly useful for pre-digital releases. Given that there is no equivalence for ISBN numbers for sound recordings, it also helps with verifiability. However, as I tire arguing about it with a single user, I am seeking broader consensus. Should catalog numbers be removed from album articles? What do other editors thing? Thank you. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 15:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Would We Are Movie Geeks be considered unreliable? [28] The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 03:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey all. Would this be considered a reliable source? Sounblab.com. Thanks! – zmbro ( talk) 21:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I know Album of the Year (website) came up here a year back – Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 59#Album of the Year. Just recently AOTY ratings have been added at a few Beatles FAs and GAs. The 2019 discussion seemed to wrap up with general disapproval of the site, which I agree with. Apart from the user-generated aspect, it seems to me that the AOTY album pages are either extremely limited in their scope and/or users can and do add in their choice of high-scoring professional reviews. The site also appears to have no qualms about adding user reviews from sputnikmusic, I notice (eg for Rubber Soul).
Most of Wikipedia's article on the site isn't sourced at all. And the statement there that No Ripcord often uses AOTY ratings is only supported by a tweet saying "Want to keep track of all of our 2015 review scores? The folks at @aoty got you covered. One worth bookmarking." – which would suggest that AOTY often "uses" No Ripcord, not the other way round.
Personally, I can't see why we're using it – the site doesn't seem any more professionally run than Discogs or WhoSampled, there's no list of staff or evidence of editorial oversight, and nor do AOTY ratings appear to be particularly notable. It's as if someone started the site (probably pulling content in from Wikipedia(?)), the article on AOTY appeared here after two rejections at AfC and it's still arguably unworthy of inclusion, yet some editors have jumped on board and use it as yet another score/ratings toy. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, no? ... Any thoughts out there? JG66 ( talk) 20:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WP:RSN about this source. Please contribute and/or clarify my request as necessary. — Torchiest talk edits 00:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Sergecross73: @ JG66: Can we considered adding AOTY at WP:ALBUMAVOID now? The discussion is archived. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 06:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I've replaced the Pitchfork review link on the page for VHS or Beta's Le Funk album with the Internet Archive version of the URL. I've verified that the replacement link is clickable, but I haven't dug into the Wikipedia's IA policy/style guidelines, so my edit may not line up with Wikipedia best practices. So, posting an FYI here, in case anyone feels like checking my work. There's a strong possibility that I will forget all about this soon, and never look back here for replies.
Bsammon ( talk) 05:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am a new user. I'd like to edit the page about this album. I want to check the rules because I am someone who is quoted on this page. I was there during the recording and have what I believe is a clear memory about it. For example I absolutely know that Jim Walker was not singing on Fodderstompf - he'd left hours before, yet credited with vocals. The quote relating to my own name is fine but the entry reads as if I was 'Roadie 2004'. I made the comments in 2004 but worked for PiL in 1978-1980.
So it's about verification by first hand experience rather than citation. I understand why there must be guidance. Thelisteninghand ( talk) 18:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
OK Thanks all. There are problems with the page - the title being the first. The band is Public Image Limited and the album is 'Public Image' a tricky one as the single has the same name and the album is always known as 'First Issue' but it is factually incorrect. Re: Jim Walker singing, this is a false claim and has no citation or evidence, it should be deleted even if I can't show he wasn't there, no-one can show that he was. It is self evident in any case as he is Canadian and the accents on 'Fodderstompf' could not have come from him, there are only three voices: Wobble, Levene, Lydon. Re: "I was there" there is documentary evidence that I was PiL's roadie on Fodderstompf.com, and photo of myself and Lydon at the Manor. Not sure how to do hyperlinks now but can show this. However I fully accept and understand that I cannot simpy remember my own version! But the page already quotes me as being present during the recording of the song 'Fodderstompf". If that is permitted then I already have verification I think. Thelisteninghand ( talk) 16:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, there is a reliable sources noticeboard discussion about this source at WP:RSN#Is Metalreviews.com a reliable source imv, Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Interesting questions above which you might want to get involved with around "listicles" and mid-year lists. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I have created a search engine meant to search for reliable sources for music articles. The sources were taken from WP:RSMUSIC. It currently does not have any other source from any other project. It can be found here. Should it be added to WP:MUSIC/SOURCES? Lazman321 ( talk) 21:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
metallized.it describes itself as "the independent webzine for metal in Italy". By definition, Zines are WP:SPS. Would anyone object to this site being listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID as SPS? -- TheSandDoctor Talk 22:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Stormbringer.at describes itself as "The Austrian Heavyzine". By definition, Zines are WP:SPS. Would anyone object to this site being listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID as SPS? -- TheSandDoctor Talk 22:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Requesting a review of these sources for the purposes of writing about electronic instruments and production gear:
I'm often fighting off attempts to add poorly sourced content to articles on these subjects, so it would be good establish a longer list of acceptable and unacceptable sources for WP:RSINSTRUMENT. Popcornfud ( talk) 16:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I see Resident Advisor is listed as a reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronic_music/Sources, though there's no discussion linked, which always makes me slightly suspicious. I also think there might be some useful work to be done in combining these lists of sources. Perhaps sources concerning musical instruments or music production would be better in other WikiProjects (eg electronic music or musical instruments) than the albums project? Popcornfud ( talk) 14:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox album has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the
discussion page. Thank you.
Sock
(tock talk)
01:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
With the changes in music consumption patterns came changes in music recording certification standards, which in turn require changes in they way these certifications are listed, which is mostly through {{ certification Table Entry}}. Editors who are interested in how these changes are going to be implemented are invited to contribute to the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Misc denotation. -- Muhandes ( talk) 08:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Would Just Jared Jr be considered reliable? The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 01:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
User talk:Sergecross73 The link to the website is not working. Here is the message I got:
Error: Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.
To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save. Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. goo.gl, t.co, youtu.be, bit.ly), you may still be able to save your changes by using the direct, non-shortened link - you generally obtain the non-shortened link by following the link, and copying the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded. Links containing google.com/url? are resulting from a copy/paste from the result page of a Google search - please follow the link on the result page, and copy/paste the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded, or click here to convert the link. If you feel the link is needed, you can: Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you). Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page. Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia. The following link has triggered a protection filter: justjaredjr.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.
Solutions:
If the url used is a url shortener/redirect, please use the full url in its place, for example, use youtube.com rather than youtu.be, If the url is a google url, please look to use the (full) original source, not the google shortcut or its alternative. Look to find an alternative url that is considered authoritative. The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 04:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I most definitely wouldn't recommend using this when it's a gossip site. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 20:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Turbo-folk compilation albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 15:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Chalga compilation albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 16:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Compilation albums by Bulgarian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 16:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Are lists like List of Varèse Sarabande albums acceptable under current Wikipedia inclusion criteria? Spiderone 15:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of recordings made at Abbey Road Studios
FYI. postdlf ( talk) 20:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question related to the style of presenting television soundtrack album(s) and single(s). For example, in Crash Landing on You#Original soundtrack, I have presented the album and singles under different heading. But in other articles, like Itaewon Class#Original soundtrack, there is no such demarcation. Also I have seen, like in Parasite (2019 film)#Music, single is listed within the infobox. So, what is the correct or the best way to present the soundtrack when single(s) are released individually prior to the release of album and then again as a part of an album. -ink&fables «talk» 14:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
In the case of List of Such-And-Such Year Albums articles (e.g. List of 2020 albums), where only one reference appears per entry, would a ref to that album's Metacritic page be a good enough source for establishing notability? Asked User:Mburrell about this ( Discussion found here) and they took the stance that it doesn't. I wouldn't be surprised if there turns out to be a consensus in agreement with that stance, but it never hurts to ask anyway. QuietHere ( talk) 03:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if anyone was looking to renominate Kanye West studio albums as a Good Topic. It is currently demoted at Wikipedia:Former featured topics as Yeezus didnt reach GA in time to prevent it from demotion. Since Yeezus, The Life of Pablo, Ye, Kids See Ghosts, and Jesus Is King are all Good Articles, I think this can be reinstated as a Good Topic. As I did not do any of these GAs, I thought I leave a note here. Thanks! -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 19:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Should the order, for both songs and albums, be
...
or
...
In the first, I think it's kinda awkward for the aesthetic to find boxes so early in the article, while in the second "Industry awards" includes fan-voted awards.
Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 17:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Here's another stylization issue. A subject about which can never make up my mind.
Check out FeelingPulledApartByHorses/TheHollowEarth, a double single by Thom Yorke. Until recently these song titles were written out conventionally as "Feeling Pulled Apart By Horses" and "The Hollow Earth", but Hostagecat renamed the article, reflecting how the song titles are listed on streaming services. This isn't how they're described in reliable sources such as Rolling Stone or Pitchfork. My inclination is that we should just write them out normally (and my personal editorial preference is to do that) but I'm not sure. Popcornfud ( talk) 14:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
The released date of Joe Walsh's There Goes The Neighborhood album, March 10, 1981 is incorrect. The correct release date is May 15, 1981. www.45worlds.com/vinyl/album/5e523 You'll have to write this www.45worlds.com/vinyl/album/5e523 address down on a piece of paper and type it in because it's black instead of blue. It's suppose to be blue so that you can click on it and it would take you to that page. But because the address refuses to turn blue for some reason, You'll have to write it down and type it in and it should take to the album's page on 45worlds. ( Jeckylback ( talk) 03:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)):
Decoded (EP) is an EP with a couple singles, one of which was remixed and the other was released as an "EP" with three remixes. I assume these should all be listed in the track listing section, but I'm not exactly sure how. Can any project members help here? Much appreciated! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 05:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed content like this being added to album articles. I have seen content like it ("this is the last album on which ...", or, "this is the only album...", or "this is the first...") added and removed. I don't know of a policy or guideline. It's usually removed because it is trivia. It certainly makes sense in the article on the artist, but does it make sense in the album article? Is it WP:OR (in which case it does not belong) or is it WP:CALC (in which case it's acceptable)? Obviously, if two or more sources write about this, it makes sense to include it with references. Suggestions? How have you responded to this sort of content? Have you added content like this? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 10:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:RSN on the Needle Drop should be considered as reliable or unreliable. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 12:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure this is in the archives, but...an editor advised that punctuation in song titles goes outside the quotation marks. The editor linked to MOS:INOROUT. Is this a "real" rule? I don't particularly care, and only put inside due to American stylization norms, I guess. Rolling Stone, Spin, etc., do so as well. Not talking about British sentence structure, which I follow if that's established, just song titles in American articles specifically. Thanks. Caro7200 ( talk) 14:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This draft was up for G13 deletion but I think it was simply WP:TOOSOON as the album was released June 26th and the draft created on the 28th. Posting a note here in case anyone is interested in developing it into an article, if possible. S0091 ( talk) 18:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
A RfC has begun at WP:RSN regarding Anthony Fantano's reviews should be count as reliable. Please add your comments there if interested. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 02:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, there is a discussion at WP:RSN#The Von Pip Musical Express as to the reliability of this music blog, imv Atlantic306 ( talk)
The list of ongoing FFD discussions:
-- George Ho ( talk) 22:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello to all, I'm preparing an article about an album by a Finnish musician that was first released in Finnish and later re-recorded (the vocals, at least) and re-released in English. Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, should the article title be the album's original name (Mustan Sydämen Rovio) or the official English name (Pyre of the Black Heart)? Victor Lopes Fala!• C 16:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this is a very basic question - I'm not super familiar with how they run as far as reliability and verifiability. I couldn't find them on RSP, so I figured I'd check. -- a lad insane (channel two) 03:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I was baffled to discover a hefty paragraph sourced entirely by Headline Planet at the Drivers License (song) article, especially after the lengthy discussion about this a few months back as well as its inclusion on WP:ALBUMAVOID. Also seeing it used multiple times on Folklore (Taylor Swift album) and Evermore (Taylor Swift album). Can someone have a look at the discussion and confirm that we've ruled out all usage of HP, or are there certain exceptions?-- N Ø 11:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Based on
headlineplanet.com
, should we move this up to RSN and request to have it blacklisted?
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
08:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I have added it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Headline Planet. Feel free to add your voices there. I have noticed that if no one comments on proposals like this, the proposals die. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
A lot of the non-notable information about WP:SINGLEVENDOR charts seems to have been re-added to the Drivers License (song) article using Music Feeds as a source. The wikipedia article about the site looks overly promotional, the About Us page invites random people to write articles, as well as press releases. Bottom of the site says that it is "a property of Mandatory, an Evolve Media, LLC company". Where do we stand on this one?-- N Ø 10:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This edit by User:Stackler adds a reference to an interview hosted on Rate Your Music. RYM is a deprecated source, and the edit is tagged as such, but all the discussions/documentation about RYM's deprecation seem to center other parts of the website and not necessarily whatever segment hosts this interview. Are RYM interviews an exception, or are they also unreliable? Was that judgment already made and I just missed it? Either way, the documentation should be updated to clarify this. QuietHere ( talk) 08:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Adore (album) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – zmbro ( talk) 23:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)