![]() | 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 60 | ← | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
Page watchers may be interested in Template talk:Music ratings#Merged. Izno ( talk) 02:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Random thought that just occurred to me. I was looking at ReWiggled's track list and noticed that their cover of " She's a Rainbow" is credited as being written by M. Jagger and K. Richards. All well and good. But then it hit me that when I made the track list for Draft:Stoned Cold Country, I wrote the credit as "All tracks are written by Jagger/Richards", with that link going to a page about the writing partnership between the two. A similar page also exists at Lennon–McCartney for those Beatley fellows, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are even more than that (such as my favorite songwriting duo Kirk/Spock). So now I'm looking at these and wondering if it would be correct to write it the way I did in my draft, or should I link them separately like it's done on ReWiggled and presumably most other pages. Is there something in the MoS that I've forgotten about/haven't seen which answers this? Should there be a strict preference, or is either fine? QuietHere ( talk) 05:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Ten years ago I began the task of assessing album articles for quality (from stub-class to B-class). At the time there were over 40,000 articles that required assessments. Add in the thousands of new articles created during that ten-year time frame, and we're probably looking at over 50,000 album articles that needed to be assessed for this Project. Well, with thanks to the work of countless others who have come and gone (in particular, Rfl0216 and Richard3120), that number is now under 1,000. With a little more help, this can be completed in a couple more weeks (although it will never be truly done) just by reviewing what remains in the unassessed album articles category. It may be a thankless task, but I've enjoyed doing this because it has exposed me to so much I wouldn't have been aware of otherwise (the albums, the music, the musicians). Of course, it also makes me aware of all the hard work so many of you are doing to add to this encyclopedia. It's been a pleasure reading and learning from your contributions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
On 18 August 2022, Rolling Stone posted an article online entitled "Welcome to the New Rolling Stone" [1] wherein it was announced that the magazine would no longer be using star ratings in their reviews for new music. The article states:
"No more starred reviews for new music. If you’re into pop culture in 2022, you’re too sophisticated to let some arbitrary number guide your tastes. So we’ll tell you right away when a new single is an instant classic or an album is an absolute must-hear. After that, our critics will help you make up your own damn mind."
Should this be clarified in the "Rolling Stone" entry in Reliable Sources, which states that they use a 5-star rating system?
Additionally, I have located at least one album review [2] on their website (published in 2016 when the 5-star rating system was still in use) which appears to use a 4-star system, with the album in question receiving 3.5 out of 4 stars. The Wiki page for the album [3] states that the album was given 3.5 out of 5 stars, with the citation containing a dead link. How should this album rating be dealt with (as well as any other reviews that may be found which use a 4-star system)? Should it be assumed that this was not a mistake, and thus the rating should be reported in a 4-star format? Should the rating be discounted entirely, as it does not appear to conform to the magazine's (previously) established system? Or something different from either of those options? Colebateman97 ( talk) 04:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I have recently created {{ Track listing total length}}, which may be helpful in templates such as {{ Track listing}}. Let me know if there's any questions or concerns. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk.
My apologies for not sorting this list down; please feel free to remove those that aren't actually applicable to this WP. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
After MicahParsons14's latest edits to Pixel Bath and Chaos Now, I realized that there's an open question regarding those changes. I have found several sources that call Bad Sports Jean Dawson's debut album ( [1] [2] [3]) as well as an interview where Dawson himself calls it his " first album". On the other hand, here's a few which call that project his debut EP and two that call it a mixtape ( [4] [5]). There's even a direct contradiction between his AllMusic bio (" his 2019 EP Bad Sports") and their review of Pixel Bath (" his 2019 debut mixtape, Bad Sports"). And this collection is far from exhaustive. From this, it seems about equally split between the three options, and I don't know which is right. QuietHere ( talk) 10:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
As a member of WikiProject Apple Inc., I've noticed quite a few iTunes Originals articles (see Category:iTunes Originals) that are of dubious notability. Quite a few of them have been nominated at AfD with no consensus closes, but it may be worth considering them as a group (since they seem to have roughly equal notability) and deciding whether to merge them into the band's respective articles, or into iTunes Originals, or whatever you think should be done. Right now, I'm at a loss as to how much potential for extension these stubs have. DFlhb ( talk) 10:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 ( talk) 20:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I have seen reviews mentioned at reliable review aggregators for the following sources (with example reviews) and would like to solicit if others think they should be added to this listing:
I am not terribly familiar with them, but I have seen some of them repeatedly (Far Out, Our Culture, Spectrum Culture) while writing album articles recently. Additionally, it seems that Northern Transmissions is blocklisted as a URI (!) locally, but not on the global list. This dates back to 2012 (!) as was due to some individual IPs spamming it, but the site itself seems safe and does not have obvious malware or spam. To see an example: https:// northerntransmissions [period] com/yo-la-tengo-this-stupid-world/. Do we think this could be added to our sources? If so, I will ask for it to be unblocked. Thanks. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Treblezine writer credentials
|
---|
|
XS Noize writer credentials
|
---|
|
Yor, the Hunter from the Future (soundtrack) has been around for along time and it seems to have been unsourced since created. If you Google the title, you'll get some hits; however, nothing seems to resemble any of the criteria specified in WP:NALBUM. The article about the film Yor, the Hunter from the Future is better developed and it seems that content found in the soundtrack album could be merged into the film's article, but it would still be unsourced so to speak. The album cover would need to go per WP:FILMSCORE and WP:NFC#cite_note-3, but maybe some of the text content could be incorporated into a new "Soundtrack" section added to the article about the film. Does any think such a thing would be acceptable or worth the effort, or does this soundtrack article need to go to AfD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The Anthem of the Outcast is over 35 minutes long, with nine songs. isn't this effectively be a mini-LP? Kart2401real ( talk) 21:10, 14 February 2023 (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.
The {{ WPALBUM}} template includes assessment parameters for both quality and importance. Since literally 99% of album-related articles will be low importance and it's hard to really even think of which album articles are more "important" than others (except maybe the article album itself), I think removing it would be wise and reduce overhead. Thoughts on this? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Support per WP:Systemic bias. An album's importance can be varies country-by-country. An album that's considered essential in the UK may not necessary be so in the US. Erick ( talk) 02:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that after the recent decision to remove the Importance parameter for album articles (which I supported), the assessment table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment has gone haywire. That table technically doesn't even need to be two-dimensional anymore, and it could be substantially redesigned. I was wondering if this has been forgotten or if automated processes will eventually straighten it out. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 19:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
This has been nominated for a few days but hasn't attracted much commentary yet. Opinions wanted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Pink Floyd...? (2nd nomination) Popcornfud ( talk) 16:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
If more secondary sources say a release is an album as opposed to an EP, do we go with what the majority label it as? Or if the artist/label's store has it labelled as an EP (as well as some a minority of secondary sources), should we give that designation priority? --
Carlobunnie (
talk)
18:18, 24 February 2023 (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 60 | ← | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
Page watchers may be interested in Template talk:Music ratings#Merged. Izno ( talk) 02:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Random thought that just occurred to me. I was looking at ReWiggled's track list and noticed that their cover of " She's a Rainbow" is credited as being written by M. Jagger and K. Richards. All well and good. But then it hit me that when I made the track list for Draft:Stoned Cold Country, I wrote the credit as "All tracks are written by Jagger/Richards", with that link going to a page about the writing partnership between the two. A similar page also exists at Lennon–McCartney for those Beatley fellows, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are even more than that (such as my favorite songwriting duo Kirk/Spock). So now I'm looking at these and wondering if it would be correct to write it the way I did in my draft, or should I link them separately like it's done on ReWiggled and presumably most other pages. Is there something in the MoS that I've forgotten about/haven't seen which answers this? Should there be a strict preference, or is either fine? QuietHere ( talk) 05:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Ten years ago I began the task of assessing album articles for quality (from stub-class to B-class). At the time there were over 40,000 articles that required assessments. Add in the thousands of new articles created during that ten-year time frame, and we're probably looking at over 50,000 album articles that needed to be assessed for this Project. Well, with thanks to the work of countless others who have come and gone (in particular, Rfl0216 and Richard3120), that number is now under 1,000. With a little more help, this can be completed in a couple more weeks (although it will never be truly done) just by reviewing what remains in the unassessed album articles category. It may be a thankless task, but I've enjoyed doing this because it has exposed me to so much I wouldn't have been aware of otherwise (the albums, the music, the musicians). Of course, it also makes me aware of all the hard work so many of you are doing to add to this encyclopedia. It's been a pleasure reading and learning from your contributions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
On 18 August 2022, Rolling Stone posted an article online entitled "Welcome to the New Rolling Stone" [1] wherein it was announced that the magazine would no longer be using star ratings in their reviews for new music. The article states:
"No more starred reviews for new music. If you’re into pop culture in 2022, you’re too sophisticated to let some arbitrary number guide your tastes. So we’ll tell you right away when a new single is an instant classic or an album is an absolute must-hear. After that, our critics will help you make up your own damn mind."
Should this be clarified in the "Rolling Stone" entry in Reliable Sources, which states that they use a 5-star rating system?
Additionally, I have located at least one album review [2] on their website (published in 2016 when the 5-star rating system was still in use) which appears to use a 4-star system, with the album in question receiving 3.5 out of 4 stars. The Wiki page for the album [3] states that the album was given 3.5 out of 5 stars, with the citation containing a dead link. How should this album rating be dealt with (as well as any other reviews that may be found which use a 4-star system)? Should it be assumed that this was not a mistake, and thus the rating should be reported in a 4-star format? Should the rating be discounted entirely, as it does not appear to conform to the magazine's (previously) established system? Or something different from either of those options? Colebateman97 ( talk) 04:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I have recently created {{ Track listing total length}}, which may be helpful in templates such as {{ Track listing}}. Let me know if there's any questions or concerns. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk.
My apologies for not sorting this list down; please feel free to remove those that aren't actually applicable to this WP. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
After MicahParsons14's latest edits to Pixel Bath and Chaos Now, I realized that there's an open question regarding those changes. I have found several sources that call Bad Sports Jean Dawson's debut album ( [1] [2] [3]) as well as an interview where Dawson himself calls it his " first album". On the other hand, here's a few which call that project his debut EP and two that call it a mixtape ( [4] [5]). There's even a direct contradiction between his AllMusic bio (" his 2019 EP Bad Sports") and their review of Pixel Bath (" his 2019 debut mixtape, Bad Sports"). And this collection is far from exhaustive. From this, it seems about equally split between the three options, and I don't know which is right. QuietHere ( talk) 10:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
As a member of WikiProject Apple Inc., I've noticed quite a few iTunes Originals articles (see Category:iTunes Originals) that are of dubious notability. Quite a few of them have been nominated at AfD with no consensus closes, but it may be worth considering them as a group (since they seem to have roughly equal notability) and deciding whether to merge them into the band's respective articles, or into iTunes Originals, or whatever you think should be done. Right now, I'm at a loss as to how much potential for extension these stubs have. DFlhb ( talk) 10:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 ( talk) 20:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I have seen reviews mentioned at reliable review aggregators for the following sources (with example reviews) and would like to solicit if others think they should be added to this listing:
I am not terribly familiar with them, but I have seen some of them repeatedly (Far Out, Our Culture, Spectrum Culture) while writing album articles recently. Additionally, it seems that Northern Transmissions is blocklisted as a URI (!) locally, but not on the global list. This dates back to 2012 (!) as was due to some individual IPs spamming it, but the site itself seems safe and does not have obvious malware or spam. To see an example: https:// northerntransmissions [period] com/yo-la-tengo-this-stupid-world/. Do we think this could be added to our sources? If so, I will ask for it to be unblocked. Thanks. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Treblezine writer credentials
|
---|
|
XS Noize writer credentials
|
---|
|
Yor, the Hunter from the Future (soundtrack) has been around for along time and it seems to have been unsourced since created. If you Google the title, you'll get some hits; however, nothing seems to resemble any of the criteria specified in WP:NALBUM. The article about the film Yor, the Hunter from the Future is better developed and it seems that content found in the soundtrack album could be merged into the film's article, but it would still be unsourced so to speak. The album cover would need to go per WP:FILMSCORE and WP:NFC#cite_note-3, but maybe some of the text content could be incorporated into a new "Soundtrack" section added to the article about the film. Does any think such a thing would be acceptable or worth the effort, or does this soundtrack article need to go to AfD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The Anthem of the Outcast is over 35 minutes long, with nine songs. isn't this effectively be a mini-LP? Kart2401real ( talk) 21:10, 14 February 2023 (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.
The {{ WPALBUM}} template includes assessment parameters for both quality and importance. Since literally 99% of album-related articles will be low importance and it's hard to really even think of which album articles are more "important" than others (except maybe the article album itself), I think removing it would be wise and reduce overhead. Thoughts on this? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Support per WP:Systemic bias. An album's importance can be varies country-by-country. An album that's considered essential in the UK may not necessary be so in the US. Erick ( talk) 02:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that after the recent decision to remove the Importance parameter for album articles (which I supported), the assessment table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment has gone haywire. That table technically doesn't even need to be two-dimensional anymore, and it could be substantially redesigned. I was wondering if this has been forgotten or if automated processes will eventually straighten it out. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 19:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
This has been nominated for a few days but hasn't attracted much commentary yet. Opinions wanted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Pink Floyd...? (2nd nomination) Popcornfud ( talk) 16:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
If more secondary sources say a release is an album as opposed to an EP, do we go with what the majority label it as? Or if the artist/label's store has it labelled as an EP (as well as some a minority of secondary sources), should we give that designation priority? --
Carlobunnie (
talk)
18:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)