Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

EP albums as sections within main albums

Some EPs (especially for bands with borderline notability) don't warrant their own articles when the EP functions as a preview of or single from a full release (main album). I would think the EP would make a fine section within a larger release's article. What are the norms on situations like this? (I searched the talk archives but couldn't find anything.) And what are some examples of album pages that have handled situations like this well? czar · · 23:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirect Make a WP:REDIRECT, use {{R from album}}, and keep the categories that the EP has. Add either Category:Printworthy redirects or Category:Unprintworthy redirects as the case may be. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think of a redirect. With the Lecrae album Church Clothes, I just worked the info about the shorter EP version into the article.--¿3family6 _contribs 22:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting Redirects are useful as search terms and for navigating from categories. You can have an indefinite amount that are useful for either purpose. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving infobox reviews

Recently, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space reached a significant milestone, when the effort passed 90% completion. I'm not sure who's been working on those, steadily chipping away without any recent help from a bot, but I'd like to thank all the editors who've contributed to the effort. There are still more than 5,000 articles to go, but we're most of the way there. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That is excellent. It won't be long before that part of the infobox can be uncoded now. I personally haven't done this a whole lot recently, but once I get done with my watchlist, I'll check out the category with album pages still needing reviews transferred. But yeah, this is quite a remarkable and noteworthy achievement in ridding the infoboxes of reviews. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 20:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the moving infobox reviews page has a link to the category, and I'll post that here also, for the clicking convenience of interested editors: The list of album articles that still need to have their reviews moved from the infobox to an album ratings template is at Category:Infobox album with reviews. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The moving infobox reviews effort is now at 95%. It took about six weeks to get from 90% to 95%. At the same rate we'll be done on November 2, but it looks like we're actually picking up some speed now that we're getting near the end -- I can tell by looking at the helpful graph that Delusion23 has added to that page. There are now less than 2600 articles left to do. This is the home stretch, folks! — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been pitching in lately, seeing as we're at the home stretch. Hopefully we'll be done soon and can remove that parameter completely from the template! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I too have done some converting here and there. It won't be long before that paramenter will be deprecated. Sweet. I like how this has been a joint effort on the behalves of many people. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 06:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving infobox reviews is now at 98%. Less than 1100 articles to go. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I haven't done any work on this in a few months, so I took this as motivation to go and move reviews for another half dozen articles.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Now it's down to 500 :D the end is in sight, finally! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the end is very much in sight! At the moment, 99.4% complete, with less than 300 articles to go! — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Down to 227, only W left to go. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Good work, everyone! Now we can finally remove the functionality of the Reviews parameter from the infobox. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed! :D We finally finished it, and took only just over a year to do the final bit manually. Now the Reviews= parameter can be deleted. I've added a milestone to the talk page of the last article to be completed as a milestone for WikiProject Albums. Hurray! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant work. Thanks, everyone! — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've put in an edit request at Template talk:Infobox album for the reviews parameter to be fully deprecated. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sweet. All that hard work was worth it. Thanks everybody. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 05:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This is amazing! Delusion23, the milestone was hilarious and really fun to read! I only just found out (I regret I'm not as active as I once was) and you all did some serious hauling at the end there. Incredible job to everyone! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Reviews on Welcome to the Show

Are any of the reviews linked to on Welcome to the Show notable? I'm not sure about any of them... Look like reviews from every metal blog in Europe. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any of them are reliable. Also, not one appears on WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. That being said, I can't read the websites of most of those (due to only speaking English), so perhaps they qualify as reliable sources and I just can't tell? But overall, they all look like unreliable blogs to me. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:The Abbey Road Sessions (Kylie Minogue album)#Status as a compilation album

You have been invited to join this discussion regarding an article that is a part of this WikiProject. Statυs (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Mind Equals Blown as reliable source

I've seen this site pop up a lot. I initially did not consider Mind Equals Blown a reliable source, but I did some research and it seems that it is.

• It has an official staff, whether paid or volunteer I do not know, with editorial oversight.
• It was co-founded by now managing editor Jack Appleby, a staff member at AbsolutePunk.net. Jason Gardner of AbsolutePunk is also an editor at MEB. [1]
• According to the affiliated and aforementioned AbsolutePunk, last year the site started organizing an annual tour. [2]
• I'm not sure if Music News Nashville is a reliable source, but they recognize MEB as a legitimate source for reviews. [3]
• HM Magazine recognizes it as a legitimate source for reviews. [4], [5]--¿3family6 _contribs 18:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Rockfreaks.net reviews

Hello. I was advised to bring up www.rockfreaks.net here for consideration for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Review_sites. Having existed for more than ten years, RockFreaks.net is now the biggest independent online magazine in Denmark. It currently has over 5000 album reviews, 15,000 news items and 600 gig reviews, all of which were submitted by staff. Moreover, it has recently become a registered company within Denmark. If there's anything I have missed out or you feel I should add, please advise; if you have any questions, concerns and/or comments, I will be as compliant as I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirIndex (talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC about iTunes as a source for release histories

Hi, I would appreciate it if you could please take some time to comment at Talk:Trouble_(Leona_Lewis_song)#How_is_iTunes_messed_up. Thanks — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Classical albums by date

Category:Classical albums by date has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 10:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Overexposed

The usage of Overexposed is up for discussion, see Talk:Overexposed (album) -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What's with the "All Music" reviews"?

Will someone please explain to me why every album on Wikipedia that has an "All Music" review needs to have a link to its corresponding review on the "All Music" site? Some pages even have their reviews as part of the article itself. Why? Why is the opinion of critics from "All Music" required at all in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia? --Mrlopez2681 (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Because Allmusic is a very credible source in Wikipedia, see WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. Erick (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

AllMusic As the name implies, AllMusic is dedicated to reviewing everything, so it will come up often. Why wouldn't we use it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion for you isn't to criticize the inclusion of AllMusic, but to find even better sources and add those as well. The goal (in theory) for any album article is to include a comprehensive summary of the album's critical response. The more sources the better. AllMusic is just one easy source that is accessible and credible. —Gendralman (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Review sources from aggregate sites

Since Metacritic, and to a lesser extent AnyDecentMusic?, seem like acceptable review sites, can a note be added to WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE that the reviews they use are acceptable here as well? Metacritic's list is pretty similar to the one at WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE, while ADM also uses UK, Australia, Germany, Ireland, and Canada review sources, along with some of Metacritic's more notable US sources ([6]), such as The Skinny (magazine), Loud and Quiet, State (magazine), and The Sunday Times/The Times. Dan56 (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

We already accept Metacritic. In fact {{Album reviews}} has a special parameter for it. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

FAC for Casting Crowns

An album under the scope of this project, Casting Crowns, is up for featured article currently. The article, if passed, would be the first featured article for a Christian rock album. Any members of this project are invited to comment on the article. Toa Nidhiki05 02:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Notable accolade?

Does this addition notable for inclusion? An accolade from a television network Fuse seems insignificant, and the editor who added it has a history of fancruft/puffing up this article by adding less notable review sources who gave the album a relatively higher rating. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Move Give It Away

A move discussion is taking place on the page Give It Away. Please give input. Oldag07 (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Need some input on album imagery

The image File:Sweetheart2.jpg is up for deletion because the fair-use justification for this back-of-album image is held inadequate, since the only real justification for its inclusion is that it is the back of the album. If anyone can speak to our guidelines for cover imagery as they might apply in this case, I invite them to comment at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 December_20#File:Sweetheart2.jpg. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Albums/chronology in infobox

Your help is appreciated with some REM albums. I made a tweak to Green (R.E.M. album) and to Document (album)--in my opinion, the chronology should not include compilations (and Document listed Succumbs as the next item). I suppose, however, that those REM compilations are totally notable in their own right; they're not regular Greatest Hits, so I am amenable to correction. Anyway, I'd appreciate your opinion and feel free to undo me, though I don't see what Succumbs should be doing in there since the chronology is usually reserved for albums. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd read "all albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain in order of release date" to include compilation releases. I'd be inclined to keep video releases separate, the infobox on Road Movie (video) looks a little confused. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus There have been several discussions about this leading to a consensus that all albums should form a chain that is navigable from one to the next rather than separate lines for studio albums and compilations (what about live albums? Soundtracks?) The easiest solution is to let users just go from one to the next and decide if they want to read that article or not. If you want links, I can find some to the old discussions. By all means, bring it up again: consensus isn't destiny, but I don't foresee it changing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Justin. I was an active participant in those previous discussions. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's great, but it leaves Document with a link to Succumbs, where all of a sudden the acceptable term "R.E.M. chronology" is replaced with the incomprehensible, illogical, and un-English term "R.E.M. albums video chronology", which points to Eponymous as the next--"R.E.M. video album"? It surely is not. I mean, duh, Succumbs is not an "album". Justin, you're too quick on the revert. Drmies (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that's the consensus, and I thought that live albums were included in the chronology. But I've never agreed with it. I've always felt that compilations were largely irrelevant to the chronology... like my opinion. ;-) By the way, it's good to see you old-timers still active. :-) -Freekee (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Succumbs doesn't appear to be an actual album (has anyone ever heard the term "video album" outside of Wikipedia?) and should not be included in the chronology of the infobox. The default should probably list all other albums (studio, live, compilations) in chronological order unless there is consensus on the artist's talk pages to split the chronologies up by type, which I think is probably best for artist's with a large catalog. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Redundant content/fork

I'm having a disagreement with an editor at Talk:The Weeknd#Music... over whether an addition is trivial or not to a musician BLP article. Should the editor's addition of a song accolade and description be distributed to the associated album article, House of Balloons, or to the recording artist's article, The Weeknd, where it doesnt seem to have any biographical relevance (in my opinion)? Feel free to comment here or at Talk:The Weeknd#Music.... Dan56 (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Chronicles of Chaos (webzine)

Chronicles of Chaos ratings and reviews are reliable or not? Can I use them in the Album ratings section? Thanks. Zheek (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The short and simple answer is no. It's not notable and there appears to be a long history of someone inserting spam links to that site on Wikipedia. Ridernyc (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Like a Prayer

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Like a Prayer#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Age of Adz Personnel -- any help?

Hi, is anyone in possession of the album The Age of Adz and able to take a look for me at the Personnel (Credits)? I don't have it with me at the moment as I'm at my second home. Would be greatly appreciated; the article is currently a GAN. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem I'm doing it now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh The credits aren't much help. Who knows who played what on this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a fear that might be the case, but it's a while since I've looked at the album. There is absolutely nowhere online that lists the personnel. Not quite sure what can actually be done in a case like this. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you cite email correspondence?: I've emailed Ashmatic Kitty the album's label, and they have said that Sufjan Stevens has not released the Credits. So I have the answer, but how do you verify this? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

E-mail You can't cite it as it hasn't been published and Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a shame in this instance. Hope it doesn't prohibit the article from passing a GAN. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack of the film

I merged the soundtrack into film. However, someone revert it. So I made discussion in thearticle talk page. --George Ho (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox chronologies and Pink Floyd

Please comment Since Template:Infobox album advises that artists' infoboxes should generally contain an unbroken chain from one album to the next and not separate chains for (e.g.) live albums, compilations, etc. and seeing as how that consensus was decided here, I figured it's appropriate to ask if other editors think that Pink Floyd's albums are exempt from this general rule and should have some other standard applied to them for determining how to navigate between their album articles. Other users are of the opinion that they are exceptional and have set about reverting attempts to create one unbroken chain from their first album to their most recent. If others want to argue that they are a special case, please explain how and what criteria by which we should create a chronology amongst their albums within the infoboxes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not exempt WP:PJ says that "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations" and "have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." Although the line about "very complex discographies" "warrant[ing] more than one chain" should be rewritten and made clearer, maybe include an example. I might see the Michael Jackson albums discography as being one, as not all albums have articles and a reader using the chain may get stuck at some point with no link to the next album (which may be an insignificant compilation album or EP), but there seems to be an article for all of Pink Floyd's albums. Dan56 (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Before we get that far, can somebody supply a reliable source that lists what Pink Floyd's "canon" albums are? The Best of the Pink Floyd / Masters of Rock, which saw a European but not worldwide release, crops up every now and again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Please explain What constitutes a "canon"? As you put it yourself in sarcasm/scare quotes, it's difficult to know what you mean. Any time I see the argument "well, this piece of media isn't canon" it smacks of WP:OR or just fanboy nonsense (it seems like this happens frequently with Beatles articles.) It's not really up to us to say that a certain Pink Floyd album doesn't really count. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is, we need to agree on precisely what albums are the correct list to put in the "next" / "previous" entries on each infobox. The talk page of WikiProject Pink Floyd would be a suitable place to do this. Once we have agreed on a definitive list, we can successfully avoid confusion and disagreement in future by having a definitive place to point to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've dug out two reliable sources - Allmusic lists The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, A Saucerful of Secrets, Soundtrack from the Film More, Ummagumma, Atom Heart Mother, Meddle, Obscured by Clouds, The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, The Wall, The Final Cut, A Momentary Lapse of Reason, Delicate Sound of Thunder, The Division Bell and Pulse. BBC Music, as part of reviewing the Discovery reissue series, list the above minus Delicate Sound of Thunder and Pulse. I'll check some more book sources, and if there is a broad agreement, we should use that. The clinching argument for me here is, given there is coverage in multiple sources, that the above discography is considered notable in its own right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to add that even though both WP:ALBUMS and WP:Pink Floyd are both Wikiprojects and fall under WP:PJ, the infobox template is under WP:ALBUMS, so instead of needing to discuss what constitutes a "core" collection of an artist's albums, maybe the guideline at Template:Infobox album#Chronology should be rewriten? So that it mentions "core collections" as an example of a complex discography, and other artist Wikiprojects can decide for themselves if their discographies apply. Dan56 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, possibly. In general though, I think going with what reliable sources say should trump consensus, which is based on what we expect sources to say, after all. The man in the street won't know a WP:PJ from a set of PJs, but they might have been exposed to a specific list of Floyd albums via advertising. I think this is just one of those trends we're seeing from defunct bands who like to repackage their entire set of works again and again - Genesis is another one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Readability What is useful for readers is not the fanon of which albums really count, but which ones were released. Let readers decide if they care about a given album or not, but provide some logical and consistent standard. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

But your definition of useful might be different to mine. What's useful for the encyclopedia is what has significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, which is what all content on Wikipedia adheres to. To add a further data point, Povey pages 342 - 352 contain the list of albums as stated above, which just reinforces my view that we should go with that list, because it is notable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Consistency It is worthwhile, useful, and professional to be consistent throughout the encyclopedia. While it is possible that exceptions could be made, each one by definition needs justification. This one doesn't have it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Since we don't have any consensus, I have tried to balance it by using what the Allmusic and Povey sources say and citing the former as a source. Hopefully that will stop editors reverting one way or the other - we'll see what arises from that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't Delicate Sound of Thunder, their first live album, in the chronology? Why are some compilations and not others? See Pink Floyd discography. -Freekee (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Create a new "remix ep" category?

Over at Template_talk:Infobox_album/color#Req:_Remix_EP a user requested a "remix ep" category. I see that there's a remix category and I see that there's an ep category, but what about those albums which are both a remix album and an extended play album such as Remixes (Coldplay album) and It's Time Remixes? Banaticus (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Remix EPs This category exists; I created it about 2.5 years ago. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg

The photograph at Commons:File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg has been deleted as a copyright violation. File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg is a local copy of this photo; as it's not currently used in any articles to illustrate, under a claim of fair use, the copyrighted album artwork it depicts, it qualifies for speedy deletion. In any case, the fair use provisions don't permit this photograph to be used in user-, template- and project-space pages. I note that it's currently used on WikiProject Albums-related pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and Template:User WikiProject Albums. Can I suggest that someone from the project locate all these uses and replace them with a freely licensed image? Otherwise these userboxes and infoboxes will break once the image is deleted. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

For interested editors, the reason for the deletion can be seen at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 February 20#File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If it gets deleted, what do folks think of this as a replacement? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vinyl_Albums.JPG J04n(talk page) 22:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The latter photo can be a suitable replacement for the one that can be on its way out. It's quite similar to the former photo. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's time to delete the image currently on display in the user box, so a replacement needs to be found. Whatever photo is chosen will have to be copied over to en.wiki and protected by an administrator so it is not subject to image vandalism. File:Vinyl Albums.JPG has a note on it saying the photographer would like to be notified of any use of the image. Has anyone done that yet? Here's another possible image that could be used instead: File:Colour vinyl.jpg. -- Dianna (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Billboard links

Much to my annoyance, a massive amount of useful links from Billboard's official site have changed in the past few months as a result of some stupid site upgrade, rendering all of them dead. To make things worse, Wayback Machine hasn't archived any of them. Examples of articles that used such links include The Extremist and Rising Force, to name but a few. The Billboard site used to be such a good one-stop shop for important chart information, but now they've gone and fucked everything up for WP purposes. Oh, what to do.. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Awful We need a template, like with Allmusic which will be updated by a bot if (read: when) they change their site again. Ugh. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Kww has done a great job with this. A bot isn't going to work if they change their "code" too much. In fact, right now, even if pages were updated to link to a corresponding new page, the chart info is often incomplete, incorrect, and/or out of date. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Right But if they had some database where they moved every instance of ".../foo/123.htm" to ".../foo/bar/123.htm" a bot can fix it easily. Or if we have a template, we can create a tracking category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Billboard has created autofowarding from its old links to its new ones. For example, the Kesha listing for Animal (Kesha album), which used to be at http://www.billboard.com/album/ke-ha/animal/1310563 gets automatically redirected to http://www.billboard.com/album/282880/animal, so, yes, that is something a bot can do in case Billboard decides to close down its old links or whatever. Unfortunately, the information presented no longer provides the chart data for the album the previous site had, making the existing source invalid for chart purposes (at least for now). In the case of Rising Force, a bot is not going to do any good when Billboard's redesign doesn't even offer a listing for the album anymore. The cached version shows an Allmusic review and the albums peak position on the Billboard 200, but there's nothing about the album itself now by looking at the artist's page at http://www.billboard.com/artist/431627/yngwie-malmsteen/album. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ugh What a headache. Who is responsible for this awful site maintenance? A similar thing happened a few years ago with Rolling Stone's site and all of their old links redirected to their homepage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a bot ready to repair all the chart URLs automatically (as Billboard is not automatically redirecting them). Feel free to discuss it at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chartbot, where my request for approval has been languishing.—Kww(talk) 21:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Bot ready

The bot to repair the Billboard site revision catastrophe has undergone its initial test run (see Special:Contributions/Chartbot. I uncovered a few small bugs in the initial edits, but any that I didn't revert are, to the best of my knowledge, good. If you have any issues with it, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chartbot is the place to bring them up.—Kww(talk) 19:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate all the hard work you are putting into all of this. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 10:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Me, too. I only recently tried to use the new version of the Billboard site--what a disaster. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Genre changes by IP user.

This user is changing an awfull lot of genres of albums. I hesitant to flag this as vandalism right away, since I have no intimate knowledge of those albums, but it seems to me that changing genres isn't something that is done lightly. Could someone look into this? Sitethief~_{talk to me}~ 00:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not vandalism per se, but it's not less unconstructive than vandalism. When someone visits several musical pages and changes the genre line-up without supplying sources or discussion, then the edit(s) should be reverted upon sight. These types of genre changes are crass and unacceptable, and Wikipedia should not have any room for them. For more information see WP:GENREWARRIOR; this is an essay on the loathsome act of genre warring, and also links to other essays as well. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles

There is a discussion occuring here regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the Wikipedia project. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

Perhaps you savvy editors can clue me in on how it is determined what publications are deemed unfit for reviews? It appears awfully random. I can certainly agree on some of them for inclusion, but others have been around for ages and offer consistent reviewing, at least in the heavy metal world. Thoughts? Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ALBUM/REVSIT is a good place to start. It lists several reliable review sources, and has an explanation and links at the top discussing what is and is not considered reliable. Are there any particular sites you are wondering about? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

www.bnrmetal.com (American) and www.metal-observer.com (German) seem to be consistent underground sites that review heavy metal. Why are some internet-based zines not excluded, but these are? Without trying to appear critical, it does seem a bit random to me... Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Album cover pic removed

In an article I created about an artist (Jim Neversink), I had made album infoboxes with pictures of the covers; the pictures were removed due to some new policy. Has this changed, and can I put the pics back again...? Thanks, SkaraB 10:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears (I'm not sure, as I can't access the deleted file page) that these were non-free images, and I would assume they were lacking in a fair use rationale. You can try uploading them again, and make sure you include a FUR, to use on that article. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this, I will try that. They were front covers of the CDs; i had copied them off the internet and inserted them into the album infobox, as I understood that that would be fair use of a copyrighted image. I had done the very same thing in an article about Rian Malan, and that one was never removed. Anyhow, I will have another go at it! Thanks for the tips. SkaraB 16:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Danny Boy Glenn Miller 78 10612.jpg

file:Danny Boy Glenn Miller 78 10612.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Rolling Stone reviews from album articles

Recently user:Dan56 removed the Rolling Stone magazine reviews from the articles The Beatles (album) and Abbey Road, see here and here. The reason for removal isn't clear but appears to have something to do with the fact that Rolling Stone did not use a star rating prior to 1981. By that logic, the Rolling Stone reviews for all albums released during that era (1967–1980) should be removed from Wikipedia. The purpose of the album ratings template is to provide a summary of notable professional reviews and omitting Rolling Stone, a leading U.S. music magazines whose reviews carry considerable weight, from the summary would be a glaring omission affecting both historical accuracy and neutrality by its absence. If others would like to comment, perhaps a consensus can be reached on whether or not to include Rolling Stone reviews in the album ratings template in album articles. Piriczki (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that User:Dan56 included information from those reviews in the article prose. The album ratings template is only a supplement for an article; prose summarizing critical reception is always better than throwing a review into a table template. So I don't see anything wrong with these edits; they remove non-ratings from the album ratings template, and add important prose to the article. In neither case do you show any support for your claim that Dan56 "removed the Rolling Stone magazine reviews from...articles". MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Prose is always better but I just think if the more notable reviews which are discussed in the article are removed from the template, it becomes an incomplete summary including only those reviews which weren't worthy of mentioning in the article. Piriczki (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with removing reviews from the template (especially non-rating reviews). Ideally, the page would contain no template at all, and all critical reception would be summarized in prose. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Red links (albums) and making them as redirects

Hi. When we should create such redirects? e.g. redirecting "A" (album) to "B" (artist). "A" is an upcoming/released album without wiki article (red link). Zheek (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess it can be a judgment call, depending on the situation. If you think the album will become notable and would fill out to a good article in the future, there's no reason to not make it a redirect, and to also add the {{R with possibilities}} template to categorize it. Redirected albums should be mentioned in the article they're redirecting to. If you're just trying to get rid of redlinks in general, you could simply just remove the brackets from the linked title. Not every album needs an article or a redirect, though. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Red links is not important for me and I think in many cases they are good for style and formatting. I asked this question because some editors create redirects for albums before or after release date. After several days, they begin to create and expand that article. I agree with you. Such redirects maybe useful in some cases but not necessary for every album or red link. Zheek (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Mercyland (redirects to Cowboy Mouth)

This is just another album by the band Cowboy Mouth. Not especially notable. Meanwhile, there is a band from Athens, Ga. that has been using the band name "Mercyland" since 1985. It is notable in that the main songwriter, David Barbe, was in a Gold album selling band, Sugar. I tried to edit so it redirects to "David Barbe," but not sure I did it right. Your help is appreciated. Thanks.174.48.177.60 (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.177.60 (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here. A fellow editor fixed the redirect to lead to the David Barbe article. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Singles chart tables

I don't know if this has been discussed before or not, but lately I've seen album articles with additional chart tables for an album's singles, which already have their own articles, such as with this revision or this. The tables are often copy-pasted from the artist's discography article. Should this be avoided? It seems like undue weight and content forking, especially when the singles have their own articles and the information is found again at the discography articles. MOS:ALBUM#Charts doesn't directly address this. Dan56 (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg

File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg was deleted as copyright violation. The image, which is used in the template {{WikiProject Albums}} and related, will eventually disappear from the caché. I opened a discussion at TT:WPSONGS to discuss which image should replace it. You can join to it. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Albums image

Current image

Proposed image
"Record-Album-01"

Now that the "2 vinyl records + 1 CD" image has been deleted, the "Parlophone LP PMC 1202" image is being used in the {{WikiProject Albums}} and {{User WikiProject Albums}} templates. While in some ways it's a cool image, it looks rather black and undifferentiated, so it's not that attractive or catchy-looking when used at a reduced size in the templates. I suggest that we use a different image instead. I propose that we use the "Record-Album-01" image, which I found on Flickr -- with appropriate licensing, of course -- and which looks nice when reduced to 100px for the {{WikiProject Albums}} template. Here are the current and proposed images, reduced to 100px. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I like both But I reckon the latter is probably better and I would prefer if WP:ALBUM and WP:SONG had different images, so I can distinguish their banners immediately. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite the image name, this is a 45rpm single, so would therefore be inappropriate for the Albums project. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Justin, thanks for mentioning that WikiProject Songs is using the Parlophone image too. All the more reason for WikiProject Albums to use a different image. 78.26, I had somehow failed to notice that the new image is a 45, not an album. Thanks for pointing that out. I agree that we should not use that image for WikiProject albums. If I get a chance I'll try to find a different image for us to use, and propose it here. And maybe other editors will do that also. — Mudwater ^(Talk)

Proposed image
"Record-Album-02"

Okay, how about this "Record-Album-02" photo for the new WikiProject Albums image? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sweet! No potential copyright issues, either. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that one looks good. STATic message me! 04:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice I like this image a lot. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks real nice. Zidane tribal (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I must confess that File:Parlophone LP PMC 1202.jpg was my idea, some of the background is at Template talk:WikiProject Albums#Dead image link but that's not the whole story. To avoid the copyright problem that had caused File:2 vinyl records + 1 CD.jpg to be zapped, I wanted to find a free-use image. The easiest place to find those is on Commons, so I looked in commons:Category:Music albums in the hope of finding something that was easily recognisable as a record album, yet was not a single album cover - I thought that if there were no images showing several albums, then an illustration of an album label would be suitable. I spotted File:Parlophone LP PMC 1202.jpg towards the bottom, and recognised it for being the first album by one of the most significant pop acts ever; but being from almost 50 years ago, I thought it would be sufficiently neutral not to provoke arguments between fans of more recent artistes. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I like "Record-Album-02", but the younger editors won't know what the heck it is. :) J04n(talk page) 17:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's only been a few days, but it seems that the new proposed image is getting a very positive response. So, I'm going to go ahead and request that the {{WikiProject Albums}} template be updated. {{User WikiProject Albums}} isn't edit protected, so I'll just update it myself. Thanks to all who have commented here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sort of scratching my head, I never saw this conversation. I think the image is great; a turntable is the best way to represent albums, imo. Anything more modern, excluding the cassette tape, is too abstract: CDs are just discs, and flash drives don't really resemble much of anything. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion: Over The Mountain

I'd like to solicit opinions regarding the merge discussion happening here in regards to an Ozzy Osbourne song called Over the Mountain. Any input is appreciated, as we've so far been unable to reach consensus. ChakaKong^talk 21:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Bloc Party FTRC

The Bloc Party Featured Topic is currently at FTRC. The review can be found here. GamerPro64 15:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Genre discussion

There is a debate going on the article for The End of All Things to Come whether or not genres need to be cited. If anyone has a moment, please come to weigh in their thoughts on the topic. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Date style for Hugh Laurie's album

There is an ongoing debate concerning whether the article about Hugh Laurie's album Let Them Talk should use American or British style dates. Please join in on the talk page. The basic argument is that Laurie is British so the article should use the British style. The other side is that the music is blues (American) and the label is American and the album was recorded in America therefore it should use the American style. We would appreciate additional input while we work toward building a consensus. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

source for Billboard charts

While reading Thriller (album), I noticed that some of the sources to Billboard such as this one are dead: 1983 year end charts. I tried to find a replacement, and an archived version and could find neither. It seems that Billboard wants you to pay now for access to charts that are more than a few years old. Is there a good solution to this problem? It could be affecting hundreds of articles. BollyJeff | talk 17:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The Billboard problem was last mentioned here. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Zoom magazine article

There is a discussion at Talk:Technical Ecstasy regarding content from a magazine called Zoom. Any input in the discussion is appreciated. ChakaKong^talk 20:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Track listing numbering

I think that for multi-CD albums, the track listing should number the tracks starting at 1 for each disc, as opposed to sequentially numbering all the tracks across all the discs. That way, the track numbers in the article will correspond to the track numbers on each disc of the album. For example, if an album has two CDs, and each CD has eight tracks, the tracks on the second CD should be numbered 1 through 8, not 9 through 16. This method is used in most multi-disc album articles -- see, to pick a random example, Anthology 1#Track listing -- but has not been followed universally. I propose that we update the "Track listing" section of the Album article style guide to make this clearer. What do other editors think? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

CD One problem here is that not all albums are released on one format. If it's multi-Compact Disc then there may be a different break than between multi-vinyl. The tracks are determined by shortcomings of the media and are almost always simply sequenced in a certain order and then split across sides/discs by necessity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the base rule, rather than the exceptions, I would agree that the numbering you suggest should be used.

Now for the issue that Koavf states, I would suggest that we look at the formats when the album is released. The standard edition (as opposed to deluxe or others with bonus tracks) that sells the best is the format that we should use. So when the vinyl out-sells the 8-track, use the vinyl. When the CD out-sells the vinyl, use the CD. When the digital download out-sells the CD, use the digital download. When direct cerebral implants out-sell digital downloads....

If no sales figures can be found, then it may be difficult to determine which numbering we should use. So in the case you mention, the the multi-disc version outsell other formats? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of cases where the album was released on CD but not on LP. Then I think the CD track listings should be used, whether or not the album was also released digitally. For albums that were released both on LP and CD, then I think either track numbering, or both, should be used in the article, depending on the album. In some cases that could be based on which sold the most copies, in other cases not. But for all of the above, it would be preferable to number the tracks corresponding to how they're numbered on CD, LP, or both -- starting with 1 on each disc -- and not have a single numbering that spans discs. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the album article style guide, here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Revert I've reverted that. Three respondents—one of whom disagreed with your proposed changes—over the course of two days does not constitute consensus to change a style guide that has existed for months or years. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no prior consensus that track listing numbers should span discs, instead of corresponding to the track numbers on the actual album. In fact, on most multi-disc album articles, the track numbers start at 1 for each disc or side, and so correspond to the track numbers on the album -- so in practice, there's more or less of a consensus to do it that way. I do really think it's *much* better for the track numbers to correspond -- while allowing for exceptions, where editors of a particular album article agree to do it differently, as is generally the case with the album article style guide. That said, I'm certainly open to further discussion, and I would definitely encourage other editors to give their opinions here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am hoping that some other members of WikiProject Albums have opinions about this question, and are willing to share them here. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Vault Reviews

I was wondering if The Daily Vault should be considered a professional review site for adding their commentary to album articles. BV ^talk 19:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding cover arts VERY different from film posters

I added an album cover of the Teresa Teng album in The Story of a Small Town. However, I removed it based on one comment that it may violate "presence helps readers understand" rule. How can an album cover with the female singer on front violate "significant presence" rule when it is different from the film poster? Why is a soundtrack album art unnecessary? --George Ho (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

FUR You need to have some critical discussion of the image itself: the media have to add to the understanding of the topic. See WP:NFUR. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So the context about the image of the singer itself is required to make the image necessary, especially if the image itself is not the primary topic. Am I correct? --George Ho (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Right All non-free media need to be justified by fair use rationales. Why do you have the right to reproduce someone else's intellectual property? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Album cover art research

Can anyone help me fill in the album cover art for Template:Joanne Gair?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

How so? There are two album articles linked there--both have cover art. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah Album art she created... Have you contacted her or her management directly? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That constitutes WP:OR. I believe we are suppose to find such information from secondary sources. I was hoping that others might know how to reasearch album cover art creative credits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources You misunderstand: I'm not claiming that you should use an e-mail from her to provide as a source that she made certain album covers, rather use an e-mail from her (should she want to respond, of course) to go to those articles and then see if they have sources to provide (which is more-or-less redundant, since the liner notes will often say). Your question is still a good one, though as there should be a searchable database for all of this but until Wikidata is better and bigger, there isn't. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability of Chinese albums

How will I determine notability of albums by Teresa Teng if reliable sources do not cover them except dandan youqing? Will I simply explain how songs originate from Japanese songs or song, like I did with Danny Chan's yat sang ho kau? Will I just add in credits of songs, like writers, and notes about them? Will I explain that they are Chinese renditions of English songs? How else without finding such sources? --George Ho (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources You can't establish notability for albums without sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Do (partial) soundtracks of The Unforgettable Character, The Story of a Small Town, and Rhythm of the Wave belong to film articles if soundtrack pages are not covered independently away from the films? --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitely Discussing the soundtrack of a film is an integral part of discussing the film in many cases. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving on to a different slightly related topic, how would meeting notability guidelines be more important than merely providing the essential tracklist and credits, which readers would like to mostly research about? If I must find sources, then I must understand Chinese (or find someone who fully understands it). But I don't think finding microform copies of old Chinese publications is plausible, especially when trying to Google it. And the way to find old publications would be forums most likely (or blogs). --George Ho (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Track listings If all you want to do is provide a track listing that is part of a larger article about the film, then I don't think that's problematic. If you want to construct an independent article, then that is. There are millions of albums that have been released and most of them are neither here nor there: they aren't important and they weren't discussed by music critics. Wikipedia doesn't aim to be an exhaustive list of every album ever, so it's not a problem that most albums aren't featured here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOT does not say explicitly about tracklists of albums. WP:IINFO might be implied, but it discussed all works in general, fiction or nonfiction. What if I can insert summaries of singles into album articles? Would that prove the album's impact, especially on the radio? --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Add Metal Blast as a reliable source

I would like to propose the inclusion of Metal Blast as a reliable source for both music reviews and interviews. It is my belief that it complies with all of the requirements established in, e.g. WP:ALBUM/REVSIT and (per WP:RS). Metal Blast (www.metalblast.net) complies with the following requirements:

1. "Reviews should be written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs), and must be from a source that is independent of the artist, record company, etc.". Metal Blast fits this description, as it has an editorial and writing staff and is fully independent from external pressures, be it bands, labels, promoters, etc.
2. It is an accurate and reliable source, as can be seen from the fact that well-established media have cited its work (e.g. http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=%22metal+blast%22&x=0&y=0 ; http://www.bravewords.com/news/176840 , et. al.)
3. Its material has been featured in other wikipedia pages, by users who are not related to MB, such as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Asylum_for_Wayward_Victorian_Girls . Additionally, Interviews from Metal Blast have been used to increase the depth of articles on Gamma Ray and Eluveitie.
4. The objectivity and accuracy of Metal Blast's reviews can be seen by the fact that albums from the same labels get no preferential treatment (e.g. Dark Tranquility's "Construct", from Century Media, got a 5/5 rating, while Heaven Shall Burn's "Veto" got a 2.5, despite also being from Century Media; Sonata Arctica's "Stones Grow Her Name" got a 0.5/5, while Avantasia's "The Mystery of Time" got a 4.5/5, despite both being from Nuclear Blast, etc.).
5. Despite the fact that Metal Blast is not an old Magazine (cannot be compared with Kerrang! or Metal Hammer) it has established itself as an important publication; this can be seen, for instance, by the fact that it was the sponsor of the PPM Festival in Belgium and the upcoming Dokk'Em Festival in the Netherlands, both featuring very important bands in the heavy metal scene.
   

I trust that the above satisfies all the requirements to include this publication as a reliable source. I am looking forward to your comments on this (in the sake of transparency, it should be noted that I one of the editors of Metal Blast; however, I have never publicized the magazine on Wikipedia nor have I created a "page" for it. I have only limited my edits to add information to articles, following the community guidelines).MaxWestfalen (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you find more sources for it being reliable outside Blabbermouth? Also you mention it as sponsering "upcoming Dokk'Em Festival in the Netherlands, both featuring very important bands in the heavy metal scene". I think anyone can really become a sponser if they send them some cash, and you could list these bands. Otherwise reading the profiles on their page and their reviewer qualifications of "We are always looking for talented people to join our expert staff. If you believe you have a good command of the written English language, can keep up with our strict schedule, and love heavy metal, then you can contact Jon to ask how to apply for a writing position.". The affiliations page says it's affiliated with some labels, but doesn't clearly state how either. I need more information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! As for your questions:

1. The sponsorship of those festivals is not an economic one, but rather a media partnership, no cash is being sent to, or received from, festival. Nobody is "sending some cash". Regarding the bands: PPM Festival - Behemoth, Helloween, Avantasia, Gamma Ray, Alestorm, Amaranthe, Queensryche, et. al.; Dokk'Em Open Air - Testament, Iced Earth, Amorphis, Symphony X, Rhapsody of Fire, Witchraft, Marduk, et. al.
2. The "good command of the written English language" part is tongue-in-cheek, based on the many submissions from would-be reviewers that, despite being English speakers, have sent very poorly written samples. The staff is made up almost exclusively of native-English speakers, with the exception of two staff members. If the requirements to join were limited to "must write in English and love metal" then the staff would be much bigger!
3. The affiliation with labels means (as it does in every magazine) that these labels, just like they do with Kerrang, Metal Hammer, Blabbermouth, etc., send the magazine promos for reviews. It does not mean that there's any economic relation between the two, simply that the magazine become a media partner and, as such, is allowed to receive pre-releases, attend media-only listening sessions, etc. These labels include, but are not limited to, Nuclear Blast, Metal Blade, EMI, Sony, Napalm Records, Earache and Frontier Records.
4. I did not only mention Blabbermouth, but also Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles; in any case, considering that Blabbermouth is considered one of the most important sources for metal news, it should suffice, otherwise it starts to become a Catch-22 situation. MaxWestfalen (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been drawn into this as an administrator, and I'd like to point out one concern: looking at the site itself, Blabbermouth allows users to submit news. That means that Metal Blast could themselves have submitted those references; several of them, in fact, read more like press releases than news articles. None of the ones I checked (and I admit to not checking them all) had a signed author working for Blabbermouth. So, I don't think we can take the claim that "They've been discussed on Blabbermouth" as a certain claim that Metal Blast is a reliable source. Also, I'll point out that most of the time I see Metal Blast being described, they're saying something like "Metal Blast recently interviewed BAND X". That doesn't necessarily mean that Metal Blast is an RS. It certainly doesn't mean that their opinions (i.e., reviews), which are what the OP (and employee of the company) are considered notable opinions. They may be, but we're going to need some really solid evidence. Also, I've advised OP that this is not necessarily the correct forum; deciding whether or not something is a reliable source or valid external link should be a site-wide decision, such as at WP:RSN. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

With regard to whether this page is the correct forum, the Sources and Review sites lists for this project direct user to here. Should this be rectified?--¿3family6 _contribs 16:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether it's tounge in cheek or not, it seems like they are generally able to take anyone. I'm not trying to be rude, but it sounds like you have affiliations with this site. Is there anything else that gives this site any notability? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

New TFA nomination

I've nominated the article 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) for consideration as a candidate for WP:Today's Featured Article, please see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, — Cirt (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Links to social media

Hi ... I was wondering if anyone can point me, for music, to our rules as to which of the ELs we now accept, such as are reflected here, and our view on linkes to iTunes which I sometimes see as well. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Links Social media can be fine in external links but should generally be avoided as sources, since they are self-published. Don't go overboard though: if someone has a homepage, he probably also links to Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. accounts from there anyway. So causal users don't need all of those links here as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct preposition

I've seen plenty of various ways to indicate that a certain label released a certain album. However, I am unsure of the correct grammar to use, so I figured I would ask here and see if anyone really knows their grammar (this means I'm looking for an answer like this: "Such-and-such says you would use [this preposition] in this situation", not "well, I've always done it like this"). Here is the generic sentence: Album Title was released on January 1, 2000, through/by/on Label Records (I've generally used "by" in the past). So which of those is the correct preposition? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Preposition I don't think it really matters, honestly. Each one is intelligible and conveys the same meaning. I agree that consistency is preferred and if it was clear that one of them was to be used, I would recommend changing the copy in the album style guide but as far as I can tell, there is no standard. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Album charts

Hello, I'm not 100% sure that this talk page is the place to ask it, but I'm sure anyone who moderates this page will be able to help me out. I've been trying to improve Rocks and Honey as much as I can... and the other day I was looking through the Hungarian version which is currently nominated as a Featured Article. After scanning through the information there to see if there's anything that can be added to the article I've been writing, I noticed it says "Denmark Hitlisten TOP20 Album: #2" in the Chart peak list. It provides this link: [7]. Can this sort of chart information be used on an album page? I'm trying to work out if that's just a daily update, in which case I'm guessing there's no way I can say "on a certain date, the album peaked at number 2 on the Denmark album charts." Or can I? Thanks if you can help with this. Bonnietylersave (talk) 17:58, 6 June, 2013 (UTC)

Source Why couldn't it be used as a source? I'm confused as to why this would be a bad source. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Question on a review site

Does anyone have an opinion as to whether MetalSucks is a reliable source for album reviews? It seems to me like it could go either way. Thanks.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Metal sources There are already a lot of acceptable sources for metal reviews, so I would play it safe and just avoid ones that seem iffy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that will work then. Thanks!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I would avoid sources who don't use their real names. I mean, Axl Rosenberg, Sammy O’Hagar, Dummy Nosenothing? I have a hard time accepting the editorial oversight of people using names like these. ChakaKong^talk 19:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a blog, not a reliable source for reviews. Nothing indicates the writers are professional music journalists. I call the big one bitey (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Another question on a possible review source

I came across an editor whose only edits seem to be adding reviews from Music Enthusiast Magazine to a number of pages. While I clearly see a possibly promotional motive on the part of that editor, I took a look at the site, and it doesn't look too bad, but I would like other opinions.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

They look OK at a glance, but one thing raises a red flag. They are openly soliciting contributors/writers (Want a creative way to express your opinion? Why not become a contributor to Music Enthusiast Magazine?). Therefor it seems likely that this source is "rely(ing) heavily on rumors and personal opinions" which would classify it as a questionable source. That's just my take on it. ChakaKong^talk 11:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It could be, or they might simply want more staff. The site doesn't have a page outlining their writing policy.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, buy they don't seem to be soliciting professional writers, they're offering the opportunity to "express your opinion". Sources relying on the personal opinion of its contributors are unreliable. ChakaKong^talk 13:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it OK to remove Blabbermout.net from the sources list?

Since we have to be all technical about it, this discussion found that Blabbermouth.net was unreliable. If there are no objections to the points raised there, can I restore this removal from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources? Dan56 (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that Blabbermouth isn't a WP:RS. Rolling Stone references it, Billboard references it, Alt Press references it, Metal Hammer references it, Revolver references it, Consequence of Sound references it, Noise Creep references it, Pop Matters references it. These are what I found with a bit of research. So it appears to be referenced by other reliable sources, and I would say it is a reliable source itself. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Updating

This article is in dire need of an update, just for starters Uncut no-longer uses a five point scale they use ratings out of ten. We need to include more sources such as The Fly, Blurt, Fact, Filter, Under the Radar, American Songwriter, Classic Rock, Mixmag, Record Collector, The Skinny, Now, The Guardian, The Observer, The Independent, No Ripcord, Paste, This Is Fake DIY, Loud and Quiet, The Daily Telegraph. The Oakland Press (Gary Graff). These are just a few that we need to consider adding to the list.HotHat (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Which article needs to be updated? What am I missing here? ChakaKong^talk 20:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think he might be refering to WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. STATic message me! 20:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct STATicVerseatide, I think if Metacritic and/or AnyDecentMusic? uses them we need to add them to our list as well.HotHat (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In what order should personnel be listed?

What is our formal or most conventional way of listing band personnel in album articles? It seems that the vast majority list the lead vocalist first, typically followed by the lead guitarist or primary songwriter. Is there any rule in terms of the order in which the band members are listed? ChakaKong^talk 13:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, is there any rule as to how we should list members and ex-members in the template of a band and on the infobox the bands' articles? Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 20:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"Made In Japan"

The usage of Made In Japan is under discussion, see talk:Made In Japan -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Izzy Stradlin's 117° page name

The page name for Izzy Stradlin's album 117° is "117 (album)". I thought that the reason for this was because the degree symbol is problematic to include in the page name, but then I checked the page for the Suzanne Vega album 99.9F° and see that the degree symbol can be used in a page name. I was able to correct the title of the song "117°" in the song list, which also had omitted the "°", but I can't change the page name. Hopefully someone else can do that. Thanks. 99.192.61.219 (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Issue with content in Dimensionaut

Over the last few days, an editor has been attempting to put content in the article Dimensionaut about the band, Sound of Contact's upcoming tour. Because the tour isn't an album promotion tour, I don't see why the content should be in the album article, when it's already in the article on the band. Using what I view to be synthesis and original research with no reference to back up his viewpoint, the editor inserting the content continues to insist that the band's upcoming "Bring the Prog Back" tour is designed to be a promotion tour for their newly released album. Looking at Sound of Contact's own website (found here http://www.soundofcontact.com/tour-dates/]), you will see that there is nothing on their website that mentions anything about the tour being a tour to promote Dimensionaut. In fact, the very opposite seems true since there are scores of other bands that will be performing during this tour. If anything, the tour is designed to generate enthusiasm for the Progressive Rock genre (hence, the name of the tour). Simon Collins, member of Sound of Contact is quoted on the band's website in regard to the tour as stating, "We’re doing this tour with a lot of modern progressive rock bands carrying the torch forward into the future. It’s oddly poetic that we bookend the tour playing shows with some of the significant originators of the genre". Collins says nothing about the tour being promotional for their new album. In fact, there are all kinds of references on the web where you can find that the European tour they were on last month and into part of June was their promotional tour for the album. There is nothing anywhere online (that I can find) mentioning anything about this latest tour being designed to promote the album. Everything Vuzor uses as reasoning to call the tour an album promotion tour is his own use of synthesis and personal reasoning. You can see from where he derives his reasoning at the album talk page here in the section "Not a promotional tool". What's most important is that not once is he able to produce anything in the form of a reference that says the latest tour is for album promotion. He comes to that conclusion all on his own based on something said here, what someone else did over there, and how other bands operate. Again, this tells me that there is synthesis and original research at play -- both of which are just not allowed. What we need is consensus at the article and I am hoping that a number of WikiProject Albums project members will give their opinions so this can be settled. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Slanted priorities?

Can I ask why it takes so long to have articles assessed here? One editor has been waiting patiently with his submission, At War with Satan, and that's been there for almost a month. Until a little while ago I had a submission of my own that I removed when I got too impatient with the process, while articles listed after and below both my submission and his were rated and removed before ours. I'm not trying to blame anyone, I just want to know why there seems to be a priority issue here. Are people just not willing to touch our articles or something? LazyBastardGuy 19:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Because we are all volunteers and assessing articles may not be any individual editor's preferred work or forte. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Alls I'm saying is, I feel like I'm waiting to be seated at a restaurant and everyone else is being let in ahead of me. I wouldn't be surprised if the other guy felt the same way. I'd assess the other article myself except I'm not too familiar with the criteria; I was merely hoping that, by an experienced Wikipedian's standards, my submission could cut it. I honestly didn't think it would take as long as it did. LazyBastardGuy 05:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Single-purpose account creating articles for EPs with questionable notability

I don't know your criteria for notability, but you might want to check the album pages created here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Eveeseses48 Despite being Japanese albums, on the Japanese wikipedia there are no mentions of the albums, nor of the artists, nor of the band itself. (I searched) Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Which reviews?

Are there any guidelines for which reviews to choose, where there are a plethora of professional source articles available? I've noticed definite cases where the "resident" editors clearly want to favour the more favourable reviews, even where that produces something wildly out of line with the likes of metacritic's rating. If something uses a pro review from a magazine not on this list, due to, well, general obscurity, would more widely known and notable sources be preferred? Is inclusion on this project's "review sites" a strong indication of whether or not to use a particular review or not, or just a starting point? 84.203.32.161 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The only requirements are that they are reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hence "guidelines for", as opposed to "requirement that". 84.203.32.161 (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Also see WP:ALBUM/REVSITE. STATic message me! 02:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was referring to, above. (That page's talk redirects here.) What's not clear is what, if any, weight to attach to that list. 84.203.32.161 (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a guideline somewhere that deals with this, but I can't find it now. Basically, the more established publications should take precedence, but diversity is encouraged, so maybe one or two less known publications. A lot of it depends on how many reviews there are. Albums with fewer reviews can afford to be more exhaustive. Also, alternative opinions should be taken into consideration. I hope that helps.--¿3family6 _contribs 03:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It does somewhat, though I'd be interested in the wording of the guideline, if it can be had. There's also how many is a "good" number of reviews, and what's just shameless padding, I suppose... 84.203.32.161 (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines are no more than ten apart from exceptional circumstances. I found the critical reception guidelines I was looking for. They will explain in more detail: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body#Critical reception.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, much obliged. On the basis of this, I'd be inclined to conclude that if ten reviews have been provided of metacritic-grade, the wikiproject's list, or indeed the intersection of the two, then introducing "outlier" reviews from much more obscure publications would need to be justified on strong separate grounds. 84.203.45.21 (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Just be aware: The Wikiproject list is by no means exhaustive. But what you suggest is a good way to determine which reviews are actually listed.--¿3family6 _contribs 23:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Once I tried to add a review by the Brazilian edition of Rolling Stone but was persistently reverted by some editors. Some said that there was another Rolling Stone review in the article (though the reviews are written by different people), other complained the review was in Portuguese, some questioned the quality of the source (is Rolling Stone really questionable?) and some even said the review wasn't right for saying the album was bad. In the end, the discussion leaded us to nowhere and I gave up. It was the only review in that section to harshly criticize the album, the others were all mixed to posivite. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 20:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The only real problem I see is that it is a foreign language source. However, if the album provides a minority viewpoint that is not found anywhere else, I think that might warrant inclusion. I'm making note of this on the talk page.--¿3family6 _contribs 22:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Chronicles of Chaos

Looking back through the archives, I saw that Chronicles of Chaos was rejected as a source, but without a detailed explanation as to why. It has an editorial staff, and other sources have referenced it (Reno Gazette-Journal, Billboard, BraveWords, Extreme Metal: Music and Culture on the Edge).--¿3family6 _contribs 18:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Spin Media

• By the way, music websites and magazines owned by Spin Media properties: AbsolutePunk, Alter the Press, Idolator, Indie Shuffle, PopMatters, Pretty Much Amazing, Property of Zack, Punk News, PureVolume, Rap-Up, Spin, Stereogum, Under the Gun, Vibe, XLR8R. All are reliable to use as music review sources. The only ones that do not disclose their staff teams are Idolator and Property of Zack.HotHat (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The Boombox, The Boot, Roughstock

User:STATicVerseatide challenged the listing of The Boombox, The Boot, and Roughstock on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources as "not professional." I added these sources, among others, without developing a consensus first, stating in my edit summary that if someone disagreed, they should challenge, which STATicVerseatide did. So, I will try to develop a consensus here:
The Boombox and The Boot both belong to Townsquare Media. This is the same company that owns Noisecreep, which is already listed as a reliable source on the list. All three of these Townsquare properties formerly belonged to AOL, who still controls Spinner, another source already listed. All of these sites have editorial staff, so I don't see why The Boombox and The Boot should be excluded while Noisecreep and Spinner are kept.
As to Roughstock, it belongs to Cheri Media Group. Incidentally, Cheri Media Group also controls HipHopDX, a website which STATicVerseatide added without consensus on the grounds that it is used by Metacritic. Roughstock has a professional staff, which User:TenPoundHammer, who writes for the site, can better explain than I.
I don't have any ill-will toward STATicVerseatide, I just want to demonstrate that these sources are indeed reliable.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you on the matter 3family6, and these are all of the music websites owned by Townsquare network properties: The 9153, Antiquiet, Baeble Music, The Boombox, The Boot, Diffuser.fm, The Drop.fm, Glide Magazine, Loudwire, Noisecreep, PopCrush, Roughstock, SoundSpike, Taste of Country, Ultimate Classic Rock. All are reliable to use as music review sources.HotHat (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• The Sources page says "…or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs), and must be from a source that is independent of the artist, record company, etc." Roughstock is independent of an artist or record company, and it has volunteer staff with editorial oversight from editor Matt Bjorke. I'm not finding much on Taste of Country, but their writers' biographies show that they have writers from Kerrang!, Spin, Paste, and other reputable music publications, so I would imagine they're credible as far as reviews go, too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The main listing I was challenging was TheBoomBox as it is not used by Metacritic, and I was under the impression that it is not even a reliable source for content additions, let alone music reviews. The others were in the case of me never hearing of them, and I apologize for the removal. STATic message me! 02:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Townsquare Media manages all their properties, so it means it is reliable to use on wikipedia for reviews, but I would not want to get BLP information from The Boombox or The Boot in the least.HotHat (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I bet that you all hate me about right now, since I brought all of the sources out of the darkness and into the light.HotHat (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Taste of Country is owned and operated by Townsquare, so it is greatly reliable now, and diffuser.fm and PopCrush are owned and operated by them as well.HotHat (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that TheBoombox and The Boot are not reliable sources, should mean they should not be considered for the list, no? I mean I do not think we should have any listed that are not used by Metacritic except for rare exceptions. STATic message me! 09:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Metacritic should not even be used on Wikipedia in the first place, and to equate that we should only use their sources is a horrendously bad idea at that. Metacritic scores are just like AnyDecentMusic?, which is their own take on criticism that has no place in an encyclopedia of this caliber. The Boot and The Boombox are recognized in the industries they cover as being a credible source, which makes this reliable and noteworthy for inclusion, and Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic? are definitely not. I am so sick of Metacritic arguments about sources it is not even funny!HotHat (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Metacritic over inflates and under degrades sources ratings, just because they think they can. Furthermore, they give scores to reviews that do not even give an actual rating, and we are suppose to trust this at all. So, it should go by this axiom; "In Metacritic, Wikipedia Trusts!"HotHat (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not mad at StaticVerseatide in the least, I just have a major diss with Metacritic, and No. 1 they have a bigotry and bias against and towards the genre that I love Christian music, and they never cover a darn think. Unless, it is a crossover like Owl City or Eisley, and those are really not Christian artist per se.

• Sorry, I went on a diatribe. I use Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic? because they are the only review aggregators out their at the present time, but they are not in the least the be all and end all of sources.HotHat (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ground rules

For inclusion at WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE, a publication or source must meet just one of the following four requirements, which are the following:HotHat (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

1. It is used by Metacritic and/or AnyDecentMusic?.
2. It has an editorial team.
3. It is affiliated with or owned by a reputable organization (i.e. Spin Media, Townsquare Media).
4. It already has an article on Wikipedia establishing notability.

• Re (4) above, what has being notable and having an article got to do with being reliable and independent? Examiner.com has an article. --Michig (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Okay got it, but I got to ask what do you think about the others though?HotHat (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know what criteria Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic use for selecting sources that they use, so I don't know if (1) makes sense or not. (2) is too vague - there are probably plenty of webzines we would want to exclude that have editorial teams - how they operate is more important than whether or not an editorial team exists. (3) is also too unspecific - Sony is a reputable organization (kind of) - would we want to take reviews of Sony-affiliated releases from a Sony-affiliated website? I would have thought that satisfying WP:RS would be the best indicator. --Michig (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

By what I am reading at USERGENDERATED, I am of the belief that any source is in fact deemed to be reliable that has editorial oversight such as an editorial team in place. So, I think most of the sources that I found above, which I have put the Editorial Team tag on are usable for reviews on this encyclopedia. This is because they are not QUESTIONABLE sources in the prescribed manner they are used, which is to give a viewpoint/opinion and/or a rating on a musical work.HotHat (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The site Examiner.com offers user-generated material, and is blacklisted by Wikipedia. I don't think it should be included. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct, that is the reason they are not reputable but About.com is because they have a policy that is similar to Wikipedia, and they Guide FAQ that mentioned "when selecting potential Guides, our editors are looking for applicants we can put forward as experts."HotHat (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that guidelines 1-3 proposed by User:HotHat really are the same thing as WP:RS. Quote: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

No. 1 above of HotHat's proposal fits into the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If a site is used by Metacritic, that establishes a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, because Metacritic only accepts publications that provide "quality, well-written reviews that are well regarded in the industry or among their peers" [8]. I don't know about ADM, though the site does say that "Everything on ADM has been manually reviewed, selected and added. [9]

No. 2, has an editorial team, also falls in line with fact-checking and accuracy.

No 3, published by a reputable organization, fits into "third-party, published sources."

I would not use No. 4 as a criteria to evaluate a source alone, but if the source in question does have an article which demonstrates notability, I think this also "establishes a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," as long as the source also has an editorial team. For instance, Encyclopaedia Metallum has its own article, but the content is user generated, so it does not qualify.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It should have to meet at least two or three of the four not just one. Four should not even be one considering we have (Examiner.com, About.com and various other notable unreliable sources. I think after all the recent additions to the list, it needs copy editing because some do not belong and need more discussion ie "The Boom Box". If it is not even a reliable source I do not think we should not include it. I think that it must be used by Metacritic or AnyDecentMusic? to even be considered for the list as that means it is considered professional and known for their reviews. Of course there would be rare exceptions. STATic message me! 17:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic? are nice but we should not just use their "selected" sources, we should give a way broader viewpoint of a majority of the critics out their and Metacritic only takes a small percentage on the quality sources. If it is used by Metacritic or AnyDecentMusic? it should be included, or if the site has an editorial team in place because that is what the policy states "or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)," and this does not state Metacritic or AnyDecentMusic? in the least. Furthermore, all the sites that I listed above fulfill this that it "must be from a source that is independent of the artist, record company, etc.", so we are to include sites that have those as well, not just Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic?. I just put that as one stipulation, and not the be all end all of the matter. See, we have been leaving out sources that meet the criteria for inclusion. If Blabbermouth.com can be used most certainly About.com can be used because they are reliable for reviews and ratings, but Examiner.com is not because they do not have expert guides like About.com does.HotHat (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Just look at Robert Silva, for the reason you a wrong on About.com.HotHat (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• By what I am hearing in the conversation with TenPoundHammer (in another forum) and Michig the only thing a source has to do to be included here is to satisfy the RS criteria, which most sources listed here above in fact do. Furthermore, I see that we need to avoid using strictly just USERGENERATED websites such as Examiner.com, and make sure QUESTIONABLE sources are not used. Due to the fact, most come backed by Editorial Oversight Teams, it is trustworthy and reliable to use them. We cannot and should not obfuscate our ability to determine if sources are justifiable to be used on Wikipedia to others such as Metacritic and/or AnyDecentMusic?. Because there are many more publications out there that satisfy the requirements that we have here, which RS evokes that Context Matters. So. they say that "the reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The context we are advocating for these sources is not sensitive information such as BLP rather just to give a reception of a musical work, which is significantly lesser of a hurdle/barrier for inclusion on this list.HotHat (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We should make sure the source in question has an editorial framework in place, which this is the only requirement that solidifies that a sources is not USERGENERATED nor QUESTIONABLE, and they state that "the proper uses of a questionable source are very limited" in the first place.HotHat (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic? are just good places to start to find sources, but are never an ONLY resort to find them.HotHat (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I still thought that WP:ALBUM/REVSIT was still around but then noticed that it had been merged with WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources, my comments were related to that. The list seems just fine now. STATic message me! 04:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we had the disagreement, but what is Wikipedia without some disagreements. I will be working on adding in those sources that are deemed reliable and reputable in a couple days. I got some others that I found while researching New Order's new release. The way that I always do it is to see if they have a staff/contact us page with the staff listed to verify that they have editorial control, and that is the reason for my links placed by the sources above. Heck, you love newspapers, you can take about all your sources from them if you want to do so now.HotHat (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject like Thriller (album) or Revolver (album), but at the same time will affect articles with (album) disambiguation titles, in case if a new album is released. The discussion can be found at WT:D. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

missing comma

there should be a comma after the word "sweat", look at the cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.10.169 (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What cover? This is the discussion page for a project working on all articles about albums on Wikipedia. If you want to discuss work on a particular article, you should comment on that article's talkpage. — Gwalla | Talk 18:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

AnyDecentMusic?

This should be used in both association and conjunction with Metacritic to give a complement to each other. Both are notable and reliable for inclusion, for this purpose of being a criticism aggregator.HotHat (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with this aggregator. Is it very well-known or used? Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It is used on Spotify as an app.HotHat (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Halcyon Days (Ellie Goulding album)

A couple days ago I merged this with Halcyon (album) under the impression that geenerally reissues of this sort do not receive their own article. Her previous reissue "Bright Lights" doesn't have its own article, and neither does Florence + The Machine's Between Two Lungs or Pixie Lott's Turn It Up Louder. Is this new article really valid or should it be merged with the original version?—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I support a merge as well. There's not a whole lot here beyond a lead and a few listing anyways, so it'd be a pretty easy one to integrate... Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I attempted but I was reverted twice.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing it again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I highly doubt the users who dispute it being merged would be able to see this discussion. How about taking it to the talk page instead, where it can actually be discussed?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No I'm going to send it to AFD. On closer inspection only one citation in the article mentions the reissue and is a tertiary reliable source.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is also telling.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Review site: Melodic.net

Melodic.net is among the major English-language arts publications. It is frequently cited by other reliable sources and considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area (it meet WP:NME). The site has been referred to by many reliable sources, which include, but are not limited to:

• TMF says that Melodic.net is the Europe's leading site for modern rock with 4000 visitors per day [10]
• TMF uses Melodic.net as a source [11]
• The editor Par Winberg has worked with EMI, The Music Factory, A&R and several music artists [12] [13]
• PureVolume publishes quotes from reviews [14] [15] [16]
• Pegasus News mentions Melodic.net review [17]
• Suretone Records uses Melodic.net as a source [18]
• Not Lame Recordings publishes quotes from reviews [19]
• Liljegren Records uses Melodic.net reviews [20] [21] [22]

Recommend it goes into the professional sites section, as a reliable source with a wide selection of reviews on different genres.--Strawberry Slugs (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It's fine, I'll go ahead and add it.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I know its kind of late, but I support this one too. I've been adding it to articles for years. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)