This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
I've been seeing his reviews show up in the infoboxes lately. From all I gather, he posts videos on youtube. Unless other people can point out something else I've missed, what list should he be added to on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 16:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have a custom search set up for searching the right sites and excluding the wrong sites at once? (WPVG has a custom search linked at WP:VG/RS, but even a list of operators to copy/paste would be helpful to compile.) Makes it much easier to search for sources. If such a thing exists, it would be worth linking in prominently on this page. czar ⨹ 20:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I got here by accident, having noted some albums whose infoboxes describe them as 'Studio' albums. Especially in classical music, there are many albums which are not 'live' (ie not an actual performance), nor recorded in a studio nor under studio conditions (multi-tracking, multi-take, extensive mixing, 'patching' etc.). Many of the most notable classical recordings of the last 20/30 years have been 'single take' performances in an acoustically sympathetic 'real space'. Certain companies have even insisted on a single stereo mic. placed at a real listening distance. I can also think of non-classical albums in which the place/method of recording is notable and is not a studio, (this will usually be noted in the article text/later in the infobox, of course). Is there some way of getting the description 'STUDIO album', out of the infobox ? Pincrete ( talk) 21:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey there WikiProject! List of Black Wolf Records artists & songs and Black Wolf Records discography could use some attention mostly because it's setting off my BS detector. I've noticed a chief contributor adding some questionable content to articles, so now I'm scrutinizing some of their other contributions, including at this article. I can tell that the record label exists, but the groups in the article don't match the hits that I'm getting on Google. For instance, "Black Wolf Records" "harry styles" produces no hits, and I'm not getting any reliable connections between Black Wolf Records and Carly Rae Jepsen. And the groups listed here aren't even in the article, so I'm a little suspicious. (And the GG Allin inclusion is highly suspect) I figure you all have better resources than I am aware of, and I'd appreciate some community input since I'm getting a bit of a hoax vibe. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, just getting discussion going for the addition of Harp (magazine). It was a print magazine in the 2000s. The website is long down, but can be accessed through the archive. information about the magazine can be found here. Since it's been in print for nearly a decade, I think it's ok, but just wanted to create discussion first. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 01:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Is Muumuse unreliable? 183.171.180.141 ( talk) 13:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Why does Sgt Pepper mention the gaps between tracks on albums as "rills" in 'Recording and production' paragraph 6. A quick Google search isn't helping me find more mentions this term. Even The Beatles (album) mentions the gaps but doesn't refer to them as rills. ('Recording' paragraph 4).— TangoTizerWolfstone ( talk) 03:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I think these recent additions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Online and print – [3], [4], [5] – call for some discussion here. ( Dustblower, I admire your work, but it might be best to run things by other editors first, rather than placing them on the project page straightaway.) Here are my thoughts, and I'd welcome others' …
This issue about alternative colours (from the light-orange stars we're used to) raises a few other possibilities. If we are going down this route – a brighter yellow for PopMatters' discs, red for Fact, light blue for Kerrang!, etc – then surely we need to think about the following, for consistency:
I'm thinking all of these examples need to be borne in mind if we are going to adopt the new symbols for PopMatters, Fact and so on. Looking forward to hearing what others make of this … JG66 ( talk) 14:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I created this mess in my hastily attempt at accuracy. Dustblower ( talk) 02:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I've been looking through the documentation on albums but I can't seem to find what I'm looking for. Frequently in Korean popular music, an album is released first as a regular edition. Then a month or two later, the album is released again with a new cover and maybe an extra track or two, and is called a "repackage". My thinking is that these releases should both be covered within a single article, as the latter is only a special edition of the former. However, I'm finding a few articles where the two editions are split into two articles. Can you provide guidance? Thanks! Shinyang-i ( talk) 23:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Have all of these sources been vetted for reliability and independence? I know that AllMusic has been questioned as a reliable source due to its inclusion policy, and lack of standards. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Code (band) From what I've seen in the past, editors have considered Allmusic.com as unreliable as a source to establish topic notability and As for Allmusic.com, I don't see how it can be a measure of notability since it accepts virtually all comers ( Allmusic.com submissions). See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Allmusic.com continued ; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive258#User:Temeku reported by User:183.171.168.48 (Result: ) If Allmusic.com is not reliable for genre classifications, should there be a note to that effect in this table? -- Bejnar ( talk) 13:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a different topic than that above, but heading title is fitting for it: Should we merge or redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Sources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources? The album project list is active and maintained, and far more extensive, while the music page list hasn't been edited since 2007, and is highly specific to only a small number of magazine issues out of thousands upon thousands of published works. Also, the album source list has become pretty much a good list for music articles in general, so maybe lead for it should be expanded in scope?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
While we're on the topic of reorganizing, do we really need to have the sources organized by "online/print" and "online only" statuses? It...doesn't really matter, right? I've always thought it should be one big list, alphabetized, rather than 2 lists with a rather meaningless split... Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia use the terms "clean/unclean vocals"? Weigh in here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Use of the terms "clean/unclean vocals" on Wikipedia. Fezmar9 ( talk) 06:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
When u list the musicians....you list Christopher Joyner on keyboards, but when u click his name it comes up as a professor who dies in 2011. This Christopher Joyner isn't dead. He just joined the band Heart as their new keyboard player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.192.99 ( talk) 03:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I notice that there's no mention of The Quietus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. It looks like a perfectly usable site to me, with many well-written reviews and exclusive interviews - what do other editors think about including it on the list of sources? Thanks — sparklism hey! 14:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
While I've found discussions in the archive that address questions in this direction, I haven't found anything that is right on target. At issue is the number of "studio" albums at Blue Öyster Cult (and associated articles). I've started a talk discussion there. Two questions in one here.
1) Cult Classic is new studio recordings of previously released songs. Is this a "studio album"?
2) Bad Channels is a soundtrack with 2 songs by BOC, 9 songs by 5 other artists and a full film score by BOC. Is this a "studio album"? Comments and/or reference to previous work on this would be appreciated. In hopes of keeping any discussion in one place, please respond at Talk:Blue_Öyster_Cult#How_many_studio_albums.3F. - SummerPhD ( talk) 15:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
There's an IP added unproperly sources, especially Rolling Stones where says "one of major pop rock sellers" does not means a pop rock album. Has any reliable sources for others? 115.164.220.105 ( talk) 12:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering what is the point of many of the Wikipedia articles on "various artist" compilation albums. Many of them are nothing more than a track listing, and due to the lack of any interesting information to add, most of these articles are likely to remain just that, often without citations. Speaking from a UK point of view, the only possible exceptions that you could make are for the three annual Now That's What I Call Music! albums (by far and away the biggest selling compilations every year), but even here the only likely citable references for each article are for the release date and the highest chart position in the compilations chart, which as they always reach number 1 seems pointless anyway. So even for these albums, it will be difficult to expand them beyond a stub article consisting of a track listing.
I think the majority of articles about compilation albums should be deleted, or at the very least, if they belong to a series then to create one article that describes the series and just lists all the albums in that series – see Ministry of Sound Anthems for an example. The Power Ballads series is among the worst offenders – see Power Ballads (compilation album) and tell me if you can make any sense of the article and the track listings, and it's all "referenced" by links to sites around the world where you can purchase the album... and there are similar articles for the other five albums in the series. Personally I don't believe any of these articles are worth keeping. But the point is, I think we need some kind of consensus as to what articles of this type should be kept... very few, I reckon. Richard3120 ( talk) 17:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I notice that there's no mention of Clash at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. It looks like a perfectly usable site to me - what do other editors think about including it on the list of sources? Thanks — sparklism hey! 12:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Support per above. Not sure why Drowned in Sound is considered reliable? I see no site info on editorial staff and reviewers appear to be users. -- Lapadite ( talk) 09:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Is MetalSucks reliable for reviews and news articles? It's been stated by MetalHammer that they are insightful if that means anything. SilentDan ( talk) 19:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
See here for discussion. -- Lapadite ( talk) 13:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
A request for comment on this question has been posted at Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon. Piriczki ( talk) 20:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, WP:Albums members. There are two pending TfD discussions for navboxes for Bob Dylan album tracks here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 4#Another Side of Bob Dylan. These two navboxes are apparently similar in function to other navigation aids for Bob Dylan albums and discography; so the question has been asked "Does WP:Albums have an internal consensus whether such navbox footers are appropriate for individual albums?" Your participation in the linked TfD discussions is welcome and would be helpful. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I recently noted that XLR8R wasn't included in the sources list. Is it reliable? Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 15:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I've nominated the Love It to Death article as a Featured Article Candidate. Please participate in the article's review here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I've just finished a massive merge to an album article that has what I'd consider to be a difficult-to-understand chart placement section - difficult to compare markets or different versions, info scattered around everywhere, takes up a ton of room. Yet, as far as I can tell, breaking everything up into a bunch of little tables is what the albums MOS prescribes(?). The album was released in a total of four versions. Some markets tallied all four as one; other markets tallied all four separately. Can anyone take a look at this article XOXO (album)#Charts and make suggestions about improving the readability of the charts section while keeping it in line with the MOS? This issue comes up a lot for albums from Korea, so this info will help me in the future, too. (Please ignore shortcomings in the rest of the article, as it's still in progress.) Thank you! Shinyang-i ( talk) 22:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
MusicBrainz is currently able to display cover art from the Internet Archive's Cover Art Archive. Evidently the Internet Archive has some kind of API for accessing these images. See here for example [7]. Would it be possible/legal to leverage the same API on Wikipedia to display cover art for albums? Please let me know if there is a better project to discuss this in. Sizeofint ( talk) 05:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There is currently discussion about the list of trivia and prose on the article for Selected Ambient Works II. If anyone could Talk:Selected_Ambient_Works_Volume_II#Remove_list_of_the_use_of_the_song_in_media add to the discussion here, it would be useful. Thank you! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 04:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has been brought up a million times already, but I couldn't find mention of it sifting through the first 10 pages of 50, but All Music shouldn't be considered a reliable source. This is particularly true on underground music in where All Music writers have no knowledge of. They clearly make genre errors very often, which can be proven to be true by fact checking on other websites that specialize in said genres. There have been countless complaints about All Music on various band pages on Wikipedia about this. JanderVK ( talk) 19:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to chime in, I brought it up back in 2007 (see this comment), though not in the context of (nor on behalf of) WP:ALBUM. But it isn't just this WikiProject: WP:JAZZ has approached something of a consensus about All Music's use of genres/styles, as well (see, for example, this archived discussion). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Genre warriors are going to complain about any source that doesn't recognize their "Thrash-Swing-Neo-Pop-Punk" genre. Assigning a genre is a subjective process and Allmusic employs experts in the field. Having a different opinion does not mean Allmusic is not a reliable source. -- NeilN talk to me 21:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Information on how AllMusic works: [8], [9]. -- Lapadite ( talk) 00:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to get some clarification about what rating to use when an album rating appears to have changed over time. The original rating for Little Earthquakes in Rolling Stone in April 1992 was 3½ stars out of five – anybody with access to this copy of the magazine can verify it for themselves (I've checked it twice to make sure I wasn't imagining things). However, 23 years later the online version of the album review has reprinted the original text, but with the rating uprated to 4 stars out of five. Which of the two ratings should be used? My personal opinion is that it should be the original, not just because that's what it was on the album's release, but also because Rolling Stone has a habit of deleting articles on its website from time to time so the newer rating may get lost at some stage. Is there any guidance on this? And yes, I do realise it's pretty pedantic to be arguing over half a star. Richard3120 ( talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I came across this article by chance while trying to answer this question at the Teahouse. Is it common for article to be created for albums that have yet to be released? It seems to be a case of WP:CRYSTAL to me, but I'm not completely sure. Also, I am a little concerned by the edit sum for this edit . Taken at face value, it appears that there is possible COI editing involved and the intent of the article is to be promotional in nature. Not too familiar with album articles, so would appreciate any input from those who are. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 02:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Seems there's been some server lag where I am. I've just added something at the album talk page referring to our discussion here. Not sure if AfD is required – not sure it's isn't, either. I think the important thing is to keep those tags on the article. But yes, let's keep anything and everything else for Talk:The London Session. Cheers, JG66 ( talk) 16:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I recently tried adding this site ( [10]) as a source to an article, only for the source to be challenged by another editor. This post in the archives ( [11]) gives some indication that it might be a reliable source. Any thoughts? Kokoro20 ( talk) 04:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Kid A 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. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Wolpat and I have been having a (civilized) discussion at my talk page as to what constitutes a "reliable source" with regards to album reviews. He added one from Trucking magazine to The Take Off and Landing of Everything, which I reverted on the grounds that Trucking would probably not be considered a reliable source for album reviews. He argues that Trucking is an established magazine and that the album reviewer is a paid staff member (both of which are correct), and therefore the review is valid. The reception section of the album article style guide states that reviews from any "print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff" may be used, under which Trucking would qualify as a valid source.
I still think that album reviews should come from music magazines and internationally recognised newpapers, otherwise you could include reviews from the likes of Hello!, but I can see his point. What is the view of other editors on this matter? Richard3120 ( talk) 23:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The London Session is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The London Session until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Live at Budokan: Black Night, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. It has gone 15 days (half its discussion period) with no discussion, and while discussion is not required to merge, I thought people may not have realized it was happening, so I thought I'd notify relevant pages (related article talk pages; relevant Wikiprojects) in the interest of drumming up discussion. Thank you. Purplewowies ( talk) 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
AllMusic was the subject of a WP:MUSIC discussion, but led me to wonder about the following: Under WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, I noticed that AllMusic is listed under "Online only," while the related (or at least previously-related) All Music Guide books aren't listed anywhere on the page. (In fact, there isn't any listing of any books; perhaps it would be too exhaustive?) Shouldn't/couldn't AllMusic be listed under "Online and print?"
I've been thinking of re-formatting the tables for the list of reliable sources to something that was more formal and simpler, this is what I conjured up:
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online and print
Online only
|
I made the table more compact and also moved any large buts of info into a notes section underneath each one. Could this be implemented into the article? Or does it need improvement? SilentDan ( talk) 13:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Without any discussion Robsinden has reformatted the network of templates associated with Template:Grammy Award for Album of the Year to merge into this main template. Previously there were templates that included all the winners of the award by decade. See this former 2010s version. It seems that the effort to consolidate the templates has eliminated many of the award winners from the templates. In terms of navigation (the reason to have the templates) these award winners were probably served well by the prior navigational system of templates. Advice welcome.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Inoculator is under discussion, see talk:Inoculator -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 17:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you guys think of this move? Currently we've got no other articles on albums named Men of Honor. Albums cited in the edit summary are barely mentioned at their main pages. Should other "Blablabla (album)" articles be moved as well, provided we find mentions of similarly named albums by other artists? Victão Lopes Fala! 06:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Firts of all, apologies for the amount of time it's taking to re-format the article's tables, but i've been away for a few days and it's going to take a while regardless, here's my progress: [14]
Second of all, since I still have no idea how to simply identify a reliable source, can someone tell me if the website Rock Sins is reliable or not? Here's the link to their "About Us" page: [15]
Apologies for any inconvenience, just that while I was looking for reviews for albums this band popped up on Google News, no idea if that means anything to you but yeah I have no idea. Thank you for your time. SilentDan ( talk) 15:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Ghosts I–IV 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. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Per the discussion at WP:VE/F#Citation numbers messing up, this template is currently incompatible with VisualEditor. Given all the programming effort being made to develop VE, and the likelihood that VE will become the preferred editing choice within a couple of years, it would be ideal if this incompatibility could be fixed. And, apparently, that can't be done on the VE side. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
I've been seeing his reviews show up in the infoboxes lately. From all I gather, he posts videos on youtube. Unless other people can point out something else I've missed, what list should he be added to on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 16:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have a custom search set up for searching the right sites and excluding the wrong sites at once? (WPVG has a custom search linked at WP:VG/RS, but even a list of operators to copy/paste would be helpful to compile.) Makes it much easier to search for sources. If such a thing exists, it would be worth linking in prominently on this page. czar ⨹ 20:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I got here by accident, having noted some albums whose infoboxes describe them as 'Studio' albums. Especially in classical music, there are many albums which are not 'live' (ie not an actual performance), nor recorded in a studio nor under studio conditions (multi-tracking, multi-take, extensive mixing, 'patching' etc.). Many of the most notable classical recordings of the last 20/30 years have been 'single take' performances in an acoustically sympathetic 'real space'. Certain companies have even insisted on a single stereo mic. placed at a real listening distance. I can also think of non-classical albums in which the place/method of recording is notable and is not a studio, (this will usually be noted in the article text/later in the infobox, of course). Is there some way of getting the description 'STUDIO album', out of the infobox ? Pincrete ( talk) 21:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey there WikiProject! List of Black Wolf Records artists & songs and Black Wolf Records discography could use some attention mostly because it's setting off my BS detector. I've noticed a chief contributor adding some questionable content to articles, so now I'm scrutinizing some of their other contributions, including at this article. I can tell that the record label exists, but the groups in the article don't match the hits that I'm getting on Google. For instance, "Black Wolf Records" "harry styles" produces no hits, and I'm not getting any reliable connections between Black Wolf Records and Carly Rae Jepsen. And the groups listed here aren't even in the article, so I'm a little suspicious. (And the GG Allin inclusion is highly suspect) I figure you all have better resources than I am aware of, and I'd appreciate some community input since I'm getting a bit of a hoax vibe. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, just getting discussion going for the addition of Harp (magazine). It was a print magazine in the 2000s. The website is long down, but can be accessed through the archive. information about the magazine can be found here. Since it's been in print for nearly a decade, I think it's ok, but just wanted to create discussion first. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 01:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Is Muumuse unreliable? 183.171.180.141 ( talk) 13:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Why does Sgt Pepper mention the gaps between tracks on albums as "rills" in 'Recording and production' paragraph 6. A quick Google search isn't helping me find more mentions this term. Even The Beatles (album) mentions the gaps but doesn't refer to them as rills. ('Recording' paragraph 4).— TangoTizerWolfstone ( talk) 03:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I think these recent additions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Online and print – [3], [4], [5] – call for some discussion here. ( Dustblower, I admire your work, but it might be best to run things by other editors first, rather than placing them on the project page straightaway.) Here are my thoughts, and I'd welcome others' …
This issue about alternative colours (from the light-orange stars we're used to) raises a few other possibilities. If we are going down this route – a brighter yellow for PopMatters' discs, red for Fact, light blue for Kerrang!, etc – then surely we need to think about the following, for consistency:
I'm thinking all of these examples need to be borne in mind if we are going to adopt the new symbols for PopMatters, Fact and so on. Looking forward to hearing what others make of this … JG66 ( talk) 14:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I created this mess in my hastily attempt at accuracy. Dustblower ( talk) 02:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I've been looking through the documentation on albums but I can't seem to find what I'm looking for. Frequently in Korean popular music, an album is released first as a regular edition. Then a month or two later, the album is released again with a new cover and maybe an extra track or two, and is called a "repackage". My thinking is that these releases should both be covered within a single article, as the latter is only a special edition of the former. However, I'm finding a few articles where the two editions are split into two articles. Can you provide guidance? Thanks! Shinyang-i ( talk) 23:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Have all of these sources been vetted for reliability and independence? I know that AllMusic has been questioned as a reliable source due to its inclusion policy, and lack of standards. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Code (band) From what I've seen in the past, editors have considered Allmusic.com as unreliable as a source to establish topic notability and As for Allmusic.com, I don't see how it can be a measure of notability since it accepts virtually all comers ( Allmusic.com submissions). See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Allmusic.com continued ; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive258#User:Temeku reported by User:183.171.168.48 (Result: ) If Allmusic.com is not reliable for genre classifications, should there be a note to that effect in this table? -- Bejnar ( talk) 13:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a different topic than that above, but heading title is fitting for it: Should we merge or redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Sources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources? The album project list is active and maintained, and far more extensive, while the music page list hasn't been edited since 2007, and is highly specific to only a small number of magazine issues out of thousands upon thousands of published works. Also, the album source list has become pretty much a good list for music articles in general, so maybe lead for it should be expanded in scope?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
While we're on the topic of reorganizing, do we really need to have the sources organized by "online/print" and "online only" statuses? It...doesn't really matter, right? I've always thought it should be one big list, alphabetized, rather than 2 lists with a rather meaningless split... Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia use the terms "clean/unclean vocals"? Weigh in here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Use of the terms "clean/unclean vocals" on Wikipedia. Fezmar9 ( talk) 06:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
When u list the musicians....you list Christopher Joyner on keyboards, but when u click his name it comes up as a professor who dies in 2011. This Christopher Joyner isn't dead. He just joined the band Heart as their new keyboard player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.192.99 ( talk) 03:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I notice that there's no mention of The Quietus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. It looks like a perfectly usable site to me, with many well-written reviews and exclusive interviews - what do other editors think about including it on the list of sources? Thanks — sparklism hey! 14:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
While I've found discussions in the archive that address questions in this direction, I haven't found anything that is right on target. At issue is the number of "studio" albums at Blue Öyster Cult (and associated articles). I've started a talk discussion there. Two questions in one here.
1) Cult Classic is new studio recordings of previously released songs. Is this a "studio album"?
2) Bad Channels is a soundtrack with 2 songs by BOC, 9 songs by 5 other artists and a full film score by BOC. Is this a "studio album"? Comments and/or reference to previous work on this would be appreciated. In hopes of keeping any discussion in one place, please respond at Talk:Blue_Öyster_Cult#How_many_studio_albums.3F. - SummerPhD ( talk) 15:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
There's an IP added unproperly sources, especially Rolling Stones where says "one of major pop rock sellers" does not means a pop rock album. Has any reliable sources for others? 115.164.220.105 ( talk) 12:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering what is the point of many of the Wikipedia articles on "various artist" compilation albums. Many of them are nothing more than a track listing, and due to the lack of any interesting information to add, most of these articles are likely to remain just that, often without citations. Speaking from a UK point of view, the only possible exceptions that you could make are for the three annual Now That's What I Call Music! albums (by far and away the biggest selling compilations every year), but even here the only likely citable references for each article are for the release date and the highest chart position in the compilations chart, which as they always reach number 1 seems pointless anyway. So even for these albums, it will be difficult to expand them beyond a stub article consisting of a track listing.
I think the majority of articles about compilation albums should be deleted, or at the very least, if they belong to a series then to create one article that describes the series and just lists all the albums in that series – see Ministry of Sound Anthems for an example. The Power Ballads series is among the worst offenders – see Power Ballads (compilation album) and tell me if you can make any sense of the article and the track listings, and it's all "referenced" by links to sites around the world where you can purchase the album... and there are similar articles for the other five albums in the series. Personally I don't believe any of these articles are worth keeping. But the point is, I think we need some kind of consensus as to what articles of this type should be kept... very few, I reckon. Richard3120 ( talk) 17:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I notice that there's no mention of Clash at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. It looks like a perfectly usable site to me - what do other editors think about including it on the list of sources? Thanks — sparklism hey! 12:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Support per above. Not sure why Drowned in Sound is considered reliable? I see no site info on editorial staff and reviewers appear to be users. -- Lapadite ( talk) 09:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Is MetalSucks reliable for reviews and news articles? It's been stated by MetalHammer that they are insightful if that means anything. SilentDan ( talk) 19:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
See here for discussion. -- Lapadite ( talk) 13:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
A request for comment on this question has been posted at Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon. Piriczki ( talk) 20:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, WP:Albums members. There are two pending TfD discussions for navboxes for Bob Dylan album tracks here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 4#Another Side of Bob Dylan. These two navboxes are apparently similar in function to other navigation aids for Bob Dylan albums and discography; so the question has been asked "Does WP:Albums have an internal consensus whether such navbox footers are appropriate for individual albums?" Your participation in the linked TfD discussions is welcome and would be helpful. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I recently noted that XLR8R wasn't included in the sources list. Is it reliable? Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 15:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I've nominated the Love It to Death article as a Featured Article Candidate. Please participate in the article's review here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I've just finished a massive merge to an album article that has what I'd consider to be a difficult-to-understand chart placement section - difficult to compare markets or different versions, info scattered around everywhere, takes up a ton of room. Yet, as far as I can tell, breaking everything up into a bunch of little tables is what the albums MOS prescribes(?). The album was released in a total of four versions. Some markets tallied all four as one; other markets tallied all four separately. Can anyone take a look at this article XOXO (album)#Charts and make suggestions about improving the readability of the charts section while keeping it in line with the MOS? This issue comes up a lot for albums from Korea, so this info will help me in the future, too. (Please ignore shortcomings in the rest of the article, as it's still in progress.) Thank you! Shinyang-i ( talk) 22:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
MusicBrainz is currently able to display cover art from the Internet Archive's Cover Art Archive. Evidently the Internet Archive has some kind of API for accessing these images. See here for example [7]. Would it be possible/legal to leverage the same API on Wikipedia to display cover art for albums? Please let me know if there is a better project to discuss this in. Sizeofint ( talk) 05:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There is currently discussion about the list of trivia and prose on the article for Selected Ambient Works II. If anyone could Talk:Selected_Ambient_Works_Volume_II#Remove_list_of_the_use_of_the_song_in_media add to the discussion here, it would be useful. Thank you! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 04:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has been brought up a million times already, but I couldn't find mention of it sifting through the first 10 pages of 50, but All Music shouldn't be considered a reliable source. This is particularly true on underground music in where All Music writers have no knowledge of. They clearly make genre errors very often, which can be proven to be true by fact checking on other websites that specialize in said genres. There have been countless complaints about All Music on various band pages on Wikipedia about this. JanderVK ( talk) 19:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to chime in, I brought it up back in 2007 (see this comment), though not in the context of (nor on behalf of) WP:ALBUM. But it isn't just this WikiProject: WP:JAZZ has approached something of a consensus about All Music's use of genres/styles, as well (see, for example, this archived discussion). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Genre warriors are going to complain about any source that doesn't recognize their "Thrash-Swing-Neo-Pop-Punk" genre. Assigning a genre is a subjective process and Allmusic employs experts in the field. Having a different opinion does not mean Allmusic is not a reliable source. -- NeilN talk to me 21:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Information on how AllMusic works: [8], [9]. -- Lapadite ( talk) 00:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to get some clarification about what rating to use when an album rating appears to have changed over time. The original rating for Little Earthquakes in Rolling Stone in April 1992 was 3½ stars out of five – anybody with access to this copy of the magazine can verify it for themselves (I've checked it twice to make sure I wasn't imagining things). However, 23 years later the online version of the album review has reprinted the original text, but with the rating uprated to 4 stars out of five. Which of the two ratings should be used? My personal opinion is that it should be the original, not just because that's what it was on the album's release, but also because Rolling Stone has a habit of deleting articles on its website from time to time so the newer rating may get lost at some stage. Is there any guidance on this? And yes, I do realise it's pretty pedantic to be arguing over half a star. Richard3120 ( talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I came across this article by chance while trying to answer this question at the Teahouse. Is it common for article to be created for albums that have yet to be released? It seems to be a case of WP:CRYSTAL to me, but I'm not completely sure. Also, I am a little concerned by the edit sum for this edit . Taken at face value, it appears that there is possible COI editing involved and the intent of the article is to be promotional in nature. Not too familiar with album articles, so would appreciate any input from those who are. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 02:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Seems there's been some server lag where I am. I've just added something at the album talk page referring to our discussion here. Not sure if AfD is required – not sure it's isn't, either. I think the important thing is to keep those tags on the article. But yes, let's keep anything and everything else for Talk:The London Session. Cheers, JG66 ( talk) 16:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I recently tried adding this site ( [10]) as a source to an article, only for the source to be challenged by another editor. This post in the archives ( [11]) gives some indication that it might be a reliable source. Any thoughts? Kokoro20 ( talk) 04:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Kid A 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. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Wolpat and I have been having a (civilized) discussion at my talk page as to what constitutes a "reliable source" with regards to album reviews. He added one from Trucking magazine to The Take Off and Landing of Everything, which I reverted on the grounds that Trucking would probably not be considered a reliable source for album reviews. He argues that Trucking is an established magazine and that the album reviewer is a paid staff member (both of which are correct), and therefore the review is valid. The reception section of the album article style guide states that reviews from any "print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff" may be used, under which Trucking would qualify as a valid source.
I still think that album reviews should come from music magazines and internationally recognised newpapers, otherwise you could include reviews from the likes of Hello!, but I can see his point. What is the view of other editors on this matter? Richard3120 ( talk) 23:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The London Session is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The London Session until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Live at Budokan: Black Night, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. It has gone 15 days (half its discussion period) with no discussion, and while discussion is not required to merge, I thought people may not have realized it was happening, so I thought I'd notify relevant pages (related article talk pages; relevant Wikiprojects) in the interest of drumming up discussion. Thank you. Purplewowies ( talk) 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
AllMusic was the subject of a WP:MUSIC discussion, but led me to wonder about the following: Under WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, I noticed that AllMusic is listed under "Online only," while the related (or at least previously-related) All Music Guide books aren't listed anywhere on the page. (In fact, there isn't any listing of any books; perhaps it would be too exhaustive?) Shouldn't/couldn't AllMusic be listed under "Online and print?"
I've been thinking of re-formatting the tables for the list of reliable sources to something that was more formal and simpler, this is what I conjured up:
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online and print
Online only
|
I made the table more compact and also moved any large buts of info into a notes section underneath each one. Could this be implemented into the article? Or does it need improvement? SilentDan ( talk) 13:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Without any discussion Robsinden has reformatted the network of templates associated with Template:Grammy Award for Album of the Year to merge into this main template. Previously there were templates that included all the winners of the award by decade. See this former 2010s version. It seems that the effort to consolidate the templates has eliminated many of the award winners from the templates. In terms of navigation (the reason to have the templates) these award winners were probably served well by the prior navigational system of templates. Advice welcome.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Inoculator is under discussion, see talk:Inoculator -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 17:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you guys think of this move? Currently we've got no other articles on albums named Men of Honor. Albums cited in the edit summary are barely mentioned at their main pages. Should other "Blablabla (album)" articles be moved as well, provided we find mentions of similarly named albums by other artists? Victão Lopes Fala! 06:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Firts of all, apologies for the amount of time it's taking to re-format the article's tables, but i've been away for a few days and it's going to take a while regardless, here's my progress: [14]
Second of all, since I still have no idea how to simply identify a reliable source, can someone tell me if the website Rock Sins is reliable or not? Here's the link to their "About Us" page: [15]
Apologies for any inconvenience, just that while I was looking for reviews for albums this band popped up on Google News, no idea if that means anything to you but yeah I have no idea. Thank you for your time. SilentDan ( talk) 15:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Ghosts I–IV 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. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Per the discussion at WP:VE/F#Citation numbers messing up, this template is currently incompatible with VisualEditor. Given all the programming effort being made to develop VE, and the likelihood that VE will become the preferred editing choice within a couple of years, it would be ideal if this incompatibility could be fixed. And, apparently, that can't be done on the VE side. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)