Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50

Proposed merger from Jungle Boy (John Eddie song) to John Eddie (album)

There are currently three of us in the discussion about performing this merger. Two are in favour and one is opposed. I'm wary about closing the discussion based on a two-to-one vote, so I'd appreciate if some of you from the project who are more knowledgeable about when it's appropriate to merge song articles into album articles could comment as well. The talk page has a brief summary of what's happened so far/why the merger was proposed. Thanks! Wieno (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Is 'Under The Gun Review' reliable?

WP:RSN#Is 'Under The Gun Review' reliable? I have started a discussion on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page. Please see discussion and contribute to discussion. It holds news posts, reviews and so on which could be valuable however I am unable to determain that myself. - SilentDan297 talk 17:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert Christgau reviews with different grades

For some albums, Robert Christgau has given different grades in different reviews. For instance, for the Bruce Springsteen album Greetings from Asbury Park, N.J., his original review which appeared in Creem (April 1973) gave it a B but in the book Christgau's Record Guide (1981) he gave it a B+. Personally, I think contemporary reviews are more useful than retrospectives but the later review could perhaps be considered definitive. The grades can change positively or negatively and it's likely fans will want to use whichever grade is higher which would lead to inconsistency across different articles. Which should be used: the original, revised, or both? Piriczki (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

First I'd make sure it's clear which review is the newest. If you had to place only one in the infobox, place the newest I'd say. But it doesn't hurt to use both to talk about reception on the album's release and more modern reception. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Should LambGoat.com be on this page as a reliable source?

WP:RSN#Is LambGoat.com a reliable source?
Based on this discussion, should LambGoat.com be placed on this page as a reliable source? SilentDan297 talk 22:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A lot of sites like this are just a result of a bunch of friends setting up a website, while some are established sites with a reputation built up over years. There's a grey area in between where a lot of webzines sit. Is this a good source of professional reviews? Possibly not, but if we're just using it as a source for their own opinions then maybe would be ok. Are its news stories reliable enough to cite? They seem a bit gossipy and rumour-driven, so perhaps best avoided. --Michig (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation marks inside quotes on song titles now?

I've always been under the impression that with song titles all punctuation went outside of the quotation marks, like this... Bob Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited album includes the songs "Like a Rolling Stone", "Tombstone Blues", "Ballad of a Thin Man", and "Desolation Row" among others. Certainly the old, abandoned WP:MUSTARD page outlined that this is how song titles should be formatted within a sentence (under the "Punctuation" sub-section). However, recently I've seen a fellow editor placing commas within song title quotes, like this... Bob Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited album includes the songs "Like a Rolling Stone," "Tombstone Blues," "Ballad of a Thin Man," and "Desolation Row" among others. Knowing that the editor in question is an experienced Wikipedian, I went to The Beatles article (which I've found can usually be relied upon to exhibit all the latest music manual of style trends) and I see that in that article, the commas and other punctuation are all indeed within the quotation marks of the song titles.

The WP:MOSMUSIC page appears not to address this subject at all, like the old MUSTARD page did. So, my question is, has there been some new or new-ish consensus reached among editors whereby commas and other punctuation are now to be placed within song title quotes? And if so, can someone please point me in the direction of the relevant discussion or somewhere where this new formatting trend is outlined on a guideline or policy page? I'm posting this on the Music manual of style talk page too. Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue, Kohoutek1138. I'd been under the impression that punctuation most definitely follows the end quotation mark – otherwise we have the potential for the likes of: "Have you heard the brass lines in 'Hey Jude?' Towards the end of the song, I mean." Yet the song title is "Hey Jude", not "Hey Jude?" I do notice, though, that this habit of placing punctuation before the quotation mark is quite common in Rolling Stone reviews and in US editions of (Brit) English books – perhaps it's an American English convention?
Either way, I think it's entirely wrong in a Beatles article, or any article where style should unquestionably be British English. Serial commas are another quirk that one simply doesn't find in British English, at least not in recent decades. As far as those changes in The Beatles go, in my opinion, they're incorrect. (And I see the editor in question has also italicised a comma following the album title Magical Mystery Tour – again, that's wrong.)
Sorry, doesn't really answer your question about an encyclopaedia-wide consensus. But I think that when it comes to a subject as English as the Beatles, the issue's about retaining the Brit English approach. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
MOS:LQ says to keep punctuation inside quote marks if it is there originally, and outside if not. I'm not 100% sure this applies to titles of songs, but I apply it as if it does. Thus, Bob Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited album includes the songs "Like a Rolling Stone", "Tombstone Blues", "Ballad of a Thin Man", and "Desolation Row" among others. is how I would write it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree with MrMoustacheMM. Punctuation should only be included in the quotes for song titles or the italics for album names if they were there originally. I immediately thought of Help! which is both an album and a song. The album would be formatted Help! and the song "Help!", and that is per MOS:LQ. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I also agree. This is consistent with how the MOS spells out how punctuation works with quotes. The song title goes in quotes and everything within the quotes should be part of the song title. --Michig (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Seems concensus is for punctuation outside of the quotation marks in song titles then, both here and over at the Music MOS talk page. User Wasted Time R has actually updated the "Popular musuc" section of the MOS accordingly. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish: Warrant, Rocking Tall

It is not a very big article/listing... whatever the word is... and most of it is taken up with this rubbish sentence...

The collection spans the band's history from 1989 through 1992; although it does not include Heaven, one of the bands most popular songs....

Track listing[edit]

No. Title 1. "Down Boys" 2. "Train, Train" 3. "Heaven" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.255.120 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

From a quick glance at the Amazon and Discogs sites it looks like the track listing is incorrect and track 3 should be "Sometimes She Cries" - this is in fact what was listed on a previous version of the article and the most recent editor has changed it, and would explain the contradiction in the article's summary. In any case, your point about there not really being enough information to warrant (ha!) an article on the album seems justified... and to further add to the confusion, there was another compilation album of the same name released in 2005, with an entirely different track listing (which does include "Heaven"...). Richard3120 (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Allmusic album id labels

Forgive me if I'm being dumb or a bit blind here, but it appears that Allmusic have removed the id label for their albums, the one that used to start with the letter "r". It doesn't appear to affect links on existing album articles, but if this is the case, it will not be possible to use Template:Allmusic in album review citations in the future because the |id= field can't be filled in. Richard3120 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

SputnikMusic: Contributors

I'm aware that "Staff" reviews are to be used and "Users" are to be avoided, however what off "Contributors"? Such as this review here for the album Issues by the band Issues. It is by a "Contributors", rather than a "User" or a "Staff" member, so does this make it valuable or should it also be avoided? SilentDan297 talk 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, just looked it up and yes they are also classed as staff members, just ignore this question. SilentDan297 talk 23:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
@SilentDan297: Actually, not necessarily. "Contributors" are not the same level as staff seemingly, as they not eligible for use on Metacritic (as staff and Emeritus are), so I am not sure if we should use them as reviewers or as a reliable source. STATic message me! 05:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
@STATicVapor: But on this page it registers them as staff, along with the "Staff", "Emeritus" and other various staff members (editors and moderators) so shouldn't they count? SilentDan297 talk 13:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
@SilentDan297: Yeah I saw that, so I would like to see someone else's opinion on it. I mean if they are not deemed professional enough for use by Metacritic, I do not think we should use them. STATic message me! 17:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
@STaTicVapor: On Sputnikmusic, contributors are considered professional. They may not have all the perks of a Staff reviewer, but they have a distinction of being professional.

Ourzone Magazine

This is an online-based website that issues a digital magazine every month. It was established in 2008 and it is used as a means of reporting news, reviewing albums and interviewing artists and as you can see from this search it has been used throughout many WP articles. Should this be put onto a reliable or unreliable table on this project page? SilentDan297 talk 23:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Judging by the Whois information, the total lack of substantive "about" and "contact" information, it appears to be the pet project of a Rob Watson-Lang, who looks about sixteen years old in his Twitter profile. Scrolling through the reviews it seems that he's the only writer. He's the brother of Sonny Watson-Lang, of Twenty Twenty, so perhaps he works in the music biz. My impression is that the magazine is very enthusiastic but has no legs, and the writing seems to be uniformly positive - everything gets 8/10 or 9/10. It's operating on the level of a free flyer or Facebook comment ring rather than as an actual magazine of critical reviews and independent viewpoints and is indistinguishable from thousands of similar webzines. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

First Incubus release

Is the first Incubus release Let Me Tell Ya 'Bout Root Beer a single or an EP? I noticed that it contains only two songs and is only 7:39 in length on a 45 RPM 7" record. Should it be classified as a single in its article because it is shorter than eight minutes? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The title of the release is not the first song's name, and it appears one of the songs from the EP was released as its own single: New Skin (Incubus song). Looks like an EP to me. The length of the record overall isn't really relevant. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I know the title of the release is not the name of the A-side or the B-side (and does this even matter?), but the article for extended plays says an EP contains more music than a single. This release doesn't contain more music than a single. I thought length was relevant (like the EP article says), which seems to contradict your statement. Could this really not be classified as a single instead, as the EP article seems to indicate? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide a reliable source stating it is a single? Nothing about the release looks like a single to me, especially since it isn't specifically featuring one song as the single (and since the first track was released as its own single, as I linked above).
Do any other editors have any thoughts? Is this a single, despite not looking like one? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you have to go by what reliable sources say it is, not by what another wikipedia article says what it might be in general terms. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I have not found any sources that say it is a single, but I also have not found any sources stating it is an EP. Does the A-side have to be the featured song for it to be a single? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Pop Matters

I would like to add PopMatters. Does anyone object? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean to the reliable sources list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. PopMatters is already there. Adabow (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I see it now in online only. What do you think about www.jazz.com? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so. From their About page: "We publish reviews, interviews, historical overviews and other material of interest to our visitors, and encourage them to share their expertise and opinions on our Forums and elsewhere on the site" and "Registered members also can list in our site directory, where they can promote their goods and services, or create their own web page at jazz.com." The site doesn't seem to have much editorial oversight and is quite promotional. Adabow (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Re-writing the lead

  • I had improved the lead, but Dan reverted me. I have some significant concerns that editors have been removing and altering article content based on advice given here. Many seem to think that this page takes precedence over policy and guidelines, so I think that the lead should make clear that this does not take precedence over the MoS. GabeMc (talk|contribs)
    • You don't just rewrite the content of a WikiProject on your own merit without discussing your proposed changes first on the talk page. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Per WP:BOLD, yes I can. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Per WP:BOLD, if you are reverted, you don't revert again, and you discuss on the talk. You reverted several different users reverting you. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Per WP:BOLD, don't get upset if your bold edits get deleted, Gabe. Instead you left this inappropriate message after being reverted the first time and filed a bogus edit warring report on STATicVapor when everyone knows an edit war always takes two. There's no need to antagonize editors if your changes and reasoning can stand on its own merits. Dan56 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Yeah an edit warring report for making two reverts, how wonderful. Funny Gabe clearly does not understand WP:BRD and they are attempting to rewrite the project to fit their not WP:NPOV and gain traction at the discussion on Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. If that is their intentions, we should not even bother discussing this. STATic message me! 19:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This series of edits made by GabeMc changed "basic guide" to "basic structure", and it eliminated any form of the word "standard". I think the fact that a guide has been put together, meant for standard article layout, should not be diminished. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, the community has rejected the notion of enforcing project-wide consistency requirements. The important thing is internal consistency within an article, not project-wide standards. I think Slim Virgin can attest to this. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the project page prior to these changes served the project better than GabeMc's changes. Most of the changes made it sound like WP:MOSALBUM should be ignored completely, and I disagree with that. Having album articles be generally standardised across the project is a good thing; it means readers can know where to find specific information and know what information to expect across multiple articles.
I certainly applaud GabeMc for being WP:BOLD, but after the reversions, starting this talk page discussion was the right course of action. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • GabeMc, your edits suggest that there are contradictions between this project and WP:MOS. Could you identify these? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • GabeMc has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on this page. — Status (talk · contribs) 21:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Issues
  • "ensuring a standardized format"
The community has rejected the notion of enforcing project-wide consistency requirements. The important thing is internal consistency within an article, not project-wide standards.
  • "feel free to personalize an article as you see fit, though others may change it to fit our standards"
This implies that you can use your editorial discretion only as far as nobody wants to conform to the practices outlined here. This seems to circumvent WP:CONSENSUS, because there is no mention that the standard discussion-based approach prevails; it implies that as long as this project supports it, editors must implement the advice given here.
In a nutshell, I think this project needs to make it clear that this is not an alternative to guidelines or policies or the MoS, nor is this a standard that suppresses individual creative choices. This currently reads like an attempt to supplant the MoS, guidelines and policies. In fact, I've seen several editors remove material from article's or revert others based on advice they found here, but this is not a required policy or guideline and as such its 100% voluntary. This distinction needs to be made clear, as these template-like pages are beginning to develop as a minor spheres of influence like de facto guidelines. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
(Caveat: I'm here by virtue of an RfC.) After a quick glance at the edits the third doesn't seem too far out of bounds. But the first two in particular strike me as more fundamental changes. Those kinds of edits are probably best done only after getting some kind of consensus within the project. Lest you offend people by acting in a way that suggests a disregard for their input. Or to put it in the form of a personal analogy, many many years ago, when I was in the military I took it upon myself to make some changes in the office where I worked with a number of others. The short, and censored, version is that this didn't go over very well. After filtering out all of the shouting and four letter one syllable words, what it boiled down to was "son there is a difference between taking initiative and launching a one man bayonet charge." Words that have stuck with me through the decades. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Do musicians qualify as experts or reliable sources?

I've noticed in the past when editors have argued that an artist's own description of their music shouldn't be given weight, at least as far what the infobox's genre is, such as at 808s & Heartbreak or Rated R (Rihanna album), where the artist's own genres were disregarded in favor of critics sources. That made sense because they would be considered less objective. But what about musicians writing or commenting on someone else's work? Such as this addition to the article Countdown to Ecstasy, where the genre "pop" is attributed to the musician Joe Jackson and his autobiography? There have been musicians who've moonlighted as critics, such as Lenny Kaye, but what about those like Jackson who are exclusively musicians (his memoir is his only writing)? This was my argument when reverting the addition, but I'm not really sure. The relevant guideline I think would be WP:SUBJECTIVE, where prominent experts and professional critiques are considered the ideal sources for interpretations of a creative work, like a genre. Dan56 (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say that using some random musician's opinion is no better than using the band's own opinion or some blog writer's opinion or some forum poster's opinion. While someone's autobiography could be used to support information about that person, their opinion on another band's genre is no more reliable than yours or mine. I would stick with professional critics' opinions over another musician's autobiography. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
And I would say that the opinion of a successful musician is worth about 10 times the opinion of any "professional critic", especially when it come to rock and pop. But then I'm probably biased towards musicians, whatever their supposed "genre". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The Rambling Man and Richard3120, thoughts? Dan56 (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Dan, I'm assuming you're asking my opinion because of my post on this page a couple of weeks ago about the removal of the "adult alternative" tag from the Blue Nile's genre description: in that particular case my objection was not the removal of the "correct genre" description as I saw it, but the reasoning behind it, that it would somehow be considered an offensive term to children, which I found a ridiculous form of political correctness. Anyway, I digress – I think on the whole I agree with your reasoning, but overall the whole "genre" thing is a very tricky one to sort out. In Steely Dan's case, "rock" lumps them in with the likes of Queen, the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin, and I'm sure we can all agree that Steely Dan sound nothing like any of those bands... in the later albums especially, "jazz" would be a much better description of their music. I'm a fan of the band, but let's face it, Steely Dan don't really "rock", do they? Another problem with trying to pigeonhole an album is that the more adventurous musicians often flit between genres on the same album – I recently updated Scritti Politti's Songs to Remember and depending on the track you're listening to, it could justifiably be described as postpunk, New Wave, alternative, reggae, jazz, soul, funk, disco, and of course, pop. The final problem is, as already noted, perceived genre is subjective: for example, most Wikipedians are American and I know many of the late 70s/early 80s records from the UK that became hits in the US are often described as "New Wave", but I'm British and I know any other British person reading this would find it bizarre that Tears for Fears or Culture Club could be described as anything other than pop music – we would not see those bands as anything other than the early 80s equivalent of Pink or Katy Perry for example, whom I'm sure nobody would call New Wave. "New Wave" to us signifies music much more edgy and alternative, but I totally understand that it doesn't have the same connotation in the US. I'm not sure any of this waffle helps you very much, Dan (sorry!) – personally I'd be happy to include two or three genres as appropriate in the infobox if it helps someone who's never heard the music get an idea of what it sounds like, but I totally accept the argument that that would just lead to cluttering up the infobox with about eighteen different genre descriptions and edit wars between fans arguing over the "correct" genre, so I think I would have to say stick with the professional critics' descriptions for now. Richard3120 (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I just glanced through this page for usernames I wasnt familiar with so it would be soliciting randomly for comments (but still names relevant to this Wikiproject) rather than canvassing lol. Anyway, thanks for responding. Dan56 (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with what you said in your edit summary, Dan. I think that if there are no other sources for a genre from reliable music critics, it might be acceptable to use the opinion of a musician. I also agree that it's no better than using the band's own opinion. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  • FTR, a musician who has written a book that is published is also an author, so the idea that we can source material to reliable secondary sources so long as the author is not also a musician is utterly absurd. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Lenny Kaye was an example I brought up in my opening remark here--a reliable source for music criticism (journalist for Rolling Stone, several published books on popular music, etc.) who was also a musician. Jackson wrote an autobiography where he mentions the article topic (the album) in passing. Dan56 (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
FTR, no one questioned whether Jackson is an author or not. And evidently, MrMoustacheMM and Status didn't find anything absurd. Dan56 (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
This speaks to my concern about the approach taken here; this project does not trump the MoS, and according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Jackson is a reliable secondary source. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. MrMoustacheMM, Status, and I do not feel Jackson is a reliable source for music criticism and that a page where he describes an album he likes in his personal memoir is not "an appropriate source for that content." That's not unreasonable. Dan56 (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that musicians aren't qualified to make reliable statements regarding music genres, but musicologists are? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Define musicologist. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
"Are you saying that musicians aren't qualified to make reliable statements regarding music genres, but musicologists are?" I would say that, yes, except I wouldn't use the term "musicologist", I would say "professional music critic". Rare exceptions, such as the one Dan56 gave above, can come up, but those are exceptions.
You are correct that this project does not trump WP:RS (which is a guideline, not part of the MOS). Dan56 correctly brings up WP:CONTEXTMATTERS from RS: "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." This book probably had a ghost writer (or named writer, I have no idea), and maybe an editor or two looked at it. Is there any evidence of fact-checking; did other people check that the album was, in fact, a pop album? Per WP:SPS, we could use his autobiography to support information on himself, or situations he was involved in, etc, but his personal opinion on what genre an album is? Definitely not up to the same standard as using professional music critics, who do have editors and other people who take time to check facts, scrutinize the writing, etc.
Also, per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." followed by "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." So, besides this person's autobiography, what other reliable sources talk about this musician's opinion on the music? If a lot of reliable sources say "Joe Jackson thinks Countdown to Ecstasy is a pop album.", then perhaps this is something worth adding to the article. Or, if a lot of reliable sources also call the album "pop", we could add this information, and probably would just reference those sources instead of his autobiography. On the other hand, if the only mention of this is in his autobiography, then this minority viewpoint is not sufficiently supported to be added to the article. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Its not a minority viewpoint; the preponderance of sources list pop, rock, and jazz as the three major stylistic components of Countdown to Ecstasy‎. Dan wanted to include only rock, which is the minority viewpoint not just for this album, but for all of Steely Dan's music. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright, then use "pop", but a better source than some musician's autobiography should be used (which should be easy to do, considering a "preponderance of sources list pop"). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The way I've usually seen it be handled, in music articles or otherwise, is that it may be worth mentioning, as a direct quote attributed the respective artist, but that it shouldn't actually over-ride what critics say. If "Fall Out Boy" says "we don't play emo anymore", and all the critics/sources say "This is an emo album", then I'd basically show it as such - FOB quote saying they don't believe its emo in the writing/recording section, but mentioning that critics still felt it was emo in the reception section, and ultimately using the critics third party assessment for the infobox genre. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

multiple US charts appearing in album article's Charts section

Hi. I've just raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:Record charts – of course, it relates to all countries, not just the US. (And come to think of it, the issue relates just as much to multiple singles charts for one country.) All input would be welcome. JG66 (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Album article style guide: "Musical style, writing, composition" section

Hi everybody – I've been chatting with Sparklism who also does a fair bit of album article editing, and we are both puzzled as to why in the album article style guide the "musical style, writing, composition" section is listed so far down in the article body. We are both of the opinion that logically and chronologically speaking "writing and composition" should be the first section in the article body, or at least come after "background", and should certainly come before "recording, production", "release, promotion, marketing", etc. It would also be easier to speak about and establish the album's musical style earlier on in the article (particularly considering the recent discussions on genres in the infobox).

Now of course we both realise this is just a guide and doesn't have to be followed to the letter, but is there any particular reason why "writing" comes so far down the list in the guide? Is there a case for the guide to be altered and "musical style, writing, composition" to be moved up after "background", so that future article writers follow the same style? Richard3120 (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Richard3120 has already explained my position here, but just for the record I agree 100% with his comments above. — sparklism hey! 08:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree too. It's how I always order the album articles I create or rewrite, and I've always done it that way because that's what most of the GAs/comparable articles are organized like it. May as well change it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Background should definitely be first. I've seen all sorts of configurations of these sections on a given album article, and it comes down to personal preference and importance of that section. In an article where the songwriting section is a large section, putting it second seems reasonable. In other articles, it may not be as important to the article, and thus can go lower. Regardless, if editors want to rearrange the style guide sections, that seems fine, but keep in mind it's ok if other editors don't follow that order (this would be something to be discussed on any particular article's talk page if there are disagreements). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that – I can see that there would be occasions where you might want to talk about the "style" or "theme" of an album (e.g. a concept album) which would be more appropriate later on in the article body. In general though I think it's more likely you would want to talk about how the songs were written, what triggered certain lyrics and shaped the album's direction, etc. earlier on in the article. Richard3120 (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I've always gotten the feeling that the style guide is suggesting something chronological, so my ideal layout would be "Background", "Writing and recording", the "Music/lyrics"--it had to be written and recorded (its process first) before it could be listened to, exist, and/or be analyzed. Also, "composition" is sometimes used as to mean the same thing as "Music and lyrics", just with more pretense. Dan56 (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly it, Dan – "writing" comes after "recording" in the style guide, so it doesn't seem particularly chronological. I totally agree with your ideal layout. Richard3120 (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I too think it would be reasonable to move "Musical style, writing, composition" to be after "Background" and before "Recording, production" in the Album Article Style Guide. And I also agree with what others have said, that it's just a guideline and individual articles can vary, and that this can be discussed on an article's talk page. "P.S." In case anyone reading this discussion doesn't know where the AASG is, the shortcut is MOS:ALBUM. (Edited To Add: I see now, it's also linked to from the first post in this section.) — Mudwater (Talk) 00:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Robert Christgau as a source for "hard or heavy" music?

Is the music critic Robert Christgau a reliable source for articles on "music that is at all hard or heavy", as GabeMc put it? After his remarks at Talk:Are You Experienced (where he removed the critic's quote) (and similar sentiments at other rock articles), I feel it raises this question. Christgau's reviews (from The Village Voice or Blender or whatever) appear to be acceptable at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE, and he seems to be a reputed rock critic ("eminent rock critic", said The New York Times, "preeminent rock critic", said several writers, "the rock critic's rock critic", "Along with presenting reviews of music from all genres, Christgau insightfully and tersely analyzes the cultural or aesthetic significance of many hard-rock and heavy metal recordings.") Dan56 (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

He is one of the most well-known music critics out there, and he seems to be a reliable source for commentary on music of any genre. Adabow (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Does this even need to be discussed? He is one of the most notable music critics, he is definitely a reliable source for commentary on any genre of music. STATic message me! 21:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, he is reliable. No, you aren't POV-pushing. Despite his general dislike for metal and hard rock, he qualifies as a reliable source for reviews, and including his reviews is perfectly acceptable. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, he can definitely be used as a critical voice. This Slate article on him from 2006 captures him well – "When Robert Christgau appointed himself Dean of American Rock Critics, he was ... in his late 20s at the time—not exactly an éminence grise— [but] as the years passed, the quip became a fact." Mention of "the eloquent, often maddening, always thought-provoking words of Robert Christgau." And so on. He's really opinionated? That's his job. He writes really short reviews? That's the critical form he has honed, as the Slate portrayal discusses. He tends not to like whole genres? Well, that's true of many critics, whether they are strident about it or not, and that's why you always include lots of other critical voices too. And given that WP articles about musical artists and works tend to be written by fans of those artists and works, it's always good to include some contrarian views. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Editorial discretion demands that editors include only the most salient reviews from appropriate sources. Christgau hates hard rock and metal, so that is a factor when deciding to use him to describe these genres. Also, when there are in-depth reviews from equally reliable sources we don't bend over backwards to use a three paragraph blurb just so that we can include Christgau's name in the article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
We really shouldn't start discerning between genre when it comes to reliability of sources. We really don't need to compound genre arguments with reliability arguments, both are bad enough on their own. If he's a reliable source in general, then he should be for heavy/hard rock too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
We've clearly established how important/notable a voice Christgau is in rock criticism (from actual secondary sources discussing him), so that's settled. And similar to what Wasted Time R said, critics are not obligated to like every genre to be appropriate voices on them (that'd be like saying a critic who is a fan of metal cannot write objectively on it--the entire occupation involves subjectivity), although I can't imagine Christgau ever saying he doesn't like hard rock when he's raved about so many in that subgenre, including one of his top-five artists the New York Dolls ([1]). Furthermore, Christgau is simply open about his bias(es). Dan56 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
And I wholeheartedly agree with what Wasted Time R conclude with: "given that WP articles about musical artists and works tend to be written by fans of those artists and works, it's always good to include some contrarian views." (WP:CRIT) Although this is not the case at Are You Experienced, which is a one-sentence paraphrase (as all are, regardless of the length of the actual review) of Christgau's five-star rave of this hard rock/metal album. Dan56 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's any problem with including dissenting critical opinions – in fact I think it's a good idea to show both sides of the argument where possible (I get irked sometimes by fans altering articles on their favourite artists/albums by removing any quotes that show the record in a bad light). Where I would agree with Wasted Time R is that the review, whether good or bad, needs to be more than just one line and say something about the music, style, lasting influence, etc. Personally I tend to avoid including short reviews that simply describe the record along the lines of "Joe Bloggs' classic 1984 album, now reissued for its 30th anniversary with six extra tracks and booklet with detailed liner notes" – it doesn't tell you anything about the album and there's nothing quotable you can use from the "review": might as well just include it in the release history table and that's it. Richard3120 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that editorial discretion is always needed; that's our value-add, since WP articles aren't link parades or quote farms. Some of Christgau's reviews are so automatic per his genre dislikes or just contain one-line snarks and I wouldn't use them, for example this one of CSN. But other times he really does engage the work and draw out some interesting points, even if he doesn't like it or the genre, so I would use, say, these ones of early Black Sabbath albums or these ones of early Metallica albums. And it's just not true that he hates all hard rock or metal, witness his high ratings for Led Zep, Motorhead, and Blue Oyster Cult, just to pick three I found. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The choice of which sources to choose is absolutely key to ensuring WP:NPOV is maintained. It needs to be done on an article-by-article basis, once we have established which sources are reliable ones. Clearly Christgau meets reliability and is a notable critic. But this absolutely doesn't mean we can automatically use all of his reviews on all of our music articles. --John (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
So you agree that Christgau is not a "terrible source for music that is at all hard or heavy"? because that was the generalization GabeMc originally argued. Dan56 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
We certainly don't need to include him in every article, but her certainly could be used. I would consider him generally reliable regardless of genre, unless a consensus at a given article deems the source not to be used. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I have never heard of him - but if his page is at all accurate he would appear to be a notable critic....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Migrating cite AV media notes (aka cite album notes) to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox

Please comment regarding the migration of {{cite AV media notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. This is a discussion about the deprecation of certain parameters and how such deprecation will effect this project's articles. The discussion is not intended to address technical aspects of the conversion, though if you have questions or concerns about that, you are welcome to raise them. The discussion is here: Migrating cite AV media notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Because there are similarities, your thoughts regarding the migration of {{cite DVD-notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox are also solicited. The discussion is here: Migrating cite DVD-notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
And now considering {{cite music release notes}}. The discussion is here: Migrating cite music release notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Childhood (album)

Hi. This article has been waiting for review for quite sometime in the dreaded Articles for Creation. It's an album. I'm unsure on if it's eligible for it's own article or not. Perhaps someone from this project can review it. Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked at it, but without any knowledge of 1980's Chinese music, or sources, I couldn't really tell. Someone left a comment that more sources should be present though, and that sounds about right, since there were only 2 present in the article, and typically 4-5 is considered the minimum to keep it out of danger, in my experience... Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If Not Now, When? and record label of Incubus

Should the article for If Not Now, When? state that this is the final Incubus album released by Epic of Sony Music? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If it can be verified to be true, I see no problem with such a comment. Do you have concerns on if its true, or if its relevant? Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC).

Critical Reception

Hey guys, so I've noticed on some album articles that the critical reception (such as Allmusic's star rating) is right below the album window (where it says, for example, "studio album by the Rolling Stones", etc.). However, I've noticed with other articles, it is in the critical reception section. So, my questions are, should we establish a bit of consistency in deciding where these star ratings belong, and should we have a critical reception section for every album? Thanks! Twyfan714 (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this is probably a leftover from when the album ratings on Wikipedia used to be included in the infobox at the top right of the article – a couple of years ago it was decided to separate them out into their own album ratings tables, and the easiest and quickest way was to just separate them out with extra curly brackets. This led to the album ratings appearing immediately below the infobox, as you have noticed. I wouldn't want to speak for the rest of the WikiProject Albums community, but I would imagine that the idea is to move all album ratings into a separate critical reception section eventually, as per the album article style guide: obviously this will take a good deal of time, considering the number of album articles, and the more obscure the album, the less likely that someone has created a separate reception section for it by now. Richard3120 (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that answers my questions. Thanks for the help! Twyfan714 (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Tamar's 2 pages

I'm wondering why no article's for Tamar Braxton's single releases "The One" and "All the Way Home" have not been created yet. One was made for "Love and War". And if I may request PLEASE someone make one for "Hot Sugar" as well. All 4 were released from her album Love and War. EricEgo2012 (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Because unless there is enough information to produce a decent article about the songs, it's not worth doing. Wikipedia's notability guidelines for articles about songs state that in general most song articles can be merged with the corresponding album article. Unless there is information other than the release dates and the chart positions, and you can find information about the song itself (e.g. lyrical content, song structure, musical impact) from independent sources, it's probably not worth writing about. You could easily include any information about the songs themselves in the album's article, and the singles' chart positions are already available on the Tamar Braxton discography. Richard3120 (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion on The White Album

I've opened a move discussion at Talk:The Beatles (album)#Requested move 31 March 2014 to change the article name to The White Album. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


Radio3Net (the streams are back)

Radio3Net (also known as Radio Romania) have just changed their website. They were known for having a wide range of classic rock albums that could be streamed, including all the 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. Under WP:MUSICSTREAM a number of album articles are linked to Radio3Net. At the moment none of the links would work, and it's difficult to work out if the site intends to resume streaming albums. Under WP:LINKROT we are encouraged not to remove broken links when they are used as citations, but we can remove them when they purely used as External links, as these music links are. There are over 300 articles that link to Radio3Net, and most of those are likely to be linking to streamed albums that are currently not accessible.

My suggestion is that all links are commented out until it is known for certain what Radio3Net intend to do with their streamed albums. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal Why not just remove these? As a practical matter, anyone could hear almost any of these albums in their entirety streaming from (e.g.) YouTube. Although plenty of sites streaming this music are not approved content providers, the fact that this one is is surely some loophole of Romanian law. If readers of our encyclopedia want to listen to an album that's not free content then it's up to them to find it, just like how if they want to read a book that's not freely available, they can go to the library. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The records are not streamed on YouTube, and the artists don't get paid. The significance of Radio3Net was that it was licensed, so that the artists did get paid, and the music could not be downloaded. So it was all legal and complied with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Because Radio3Net may return to streaming once the website upgrade is finished, it may be useful to keep the links there for a while, though hidden. SilkTork ✔Tea time 05:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: all streaming music can be downloaded without exception. You just sometimes have to be more tech savvy about it. If it successfully plays through your speakers then it's running through your sound card, which can be recorded off of (even if it's not set up to do normally do that there are ways). If it plays successfully it can be recorded. End of story. Probably not without quality loss mind you, though possibly without NOTICEABLE quality loss. 24.68.154.229 (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The streaming, including for the 1001 albums, is back: http://www.radio3net.ro/play. However, it doesn't seem possible to link directly to an individual album - just to the main page, where a search has to be done for the individual album. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

New MJ album

We are going to need a few people over at Xscape (album) - to watcher over the article and participate in the talk page discussions. Thank you !! -- Moxy (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at MoS concerning peacock language

Hi there! This is a heads-up that I have opened up a discussion among the community about the use of language when summarising an entertainment product's critical reception. It's a discussion I feel we need to have and is relevant to multiple WikiProjects, including this one, so I am looking for input from other editors. Here is the discussion. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Chinese/Japanese albums FA, GA?

I am writing some articles about some Chinese albums. Can I see some of the FA or GA about Chinese/Japanese albums please? Beyoncetan (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Flood (TMBG album) peer review

Hi! I recently rewrote Flood (They Might Be Giants album) for a peer review. I would like to eventually try and work it up to GA. This is my first album article of this length so I would really appreciate any input. I hope it's all right to be posting this here (I checked the archives and found a few similar threads), but if this isn't appropriate then I understand if the thread is removed! ~ Boomur [☎] 13:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Track listings for music DVDs

Is there an equivalent to {{track listing}} that is intended for showing the "tracks" of a music DVD? This is for The Hits: Chapter One#Track listing where on 30 July 2013‎, {{DVD}} was used to create a track listing, just below that for "UK Jive Records Shop additional 12" vinyl". At the time, {{DVD}} didn't exist, so it would have showed as a redlink; but on 23 March 2014‎ it was created as a navbox, which is now showing in the article where a track listing ought to be. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed by Krystaleen --Redrose64 (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ultimate Guitar

I've seen people attempt to use Ultimate Guitar (http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/) as a source for reviews (and genres). WP:ALBUM/SOURCES says it shouldn't be used, but there is no link to any discussion. I'm just wondering what the reasoning is for this? I don't agree or disagree with it being listed as unreliable (ie I'm neutral on it, because I haven't really looked at its reviews), so this is just to determine why it is considered unreliable when it comes to reviews, etc. (At the very least, we can discuss this here so we have something to link to on SOURCES.) MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

from a cursory examination, it looks like many of Ultimate Guitar's are generated by users. those reviews are not edited for content, style, accuracy, consistency, etc., they're self-published. i think the consensus cited for Amazon (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 26#What constitutes a professional review?) applies. some reviews are marked as being written by the "UG Team" which is apparently a group with 13 members who work for Ultimate Guitar. i am not sure about those but i don't really think working for a website where users submit guitar tabs qualifies an individual as a professional reviewer. ~ Boomur [☎] 23:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've always used it like Sputnik Music, where it's only usable if it's staff written, but you've got to be careful because they've got a lot of unusuable user generated content. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Idolator

Can it be used for album reviews? prism△ 22:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Background check on unconfirmed sources

Hi there, I'm someone who's more familiar with WP:VG's guidelines on sources, but I am coming here as I have commenced work on the Sound Awake article and hope to greatly improve it. I have started on the Critical reception section, and I've been able to pull together a paragraph from the reliable sources I was able to find. I have uncovered a couple of potential sources of which there is no consensus here yet about whether their usage is appropriate or not. The sources in question are: Antimusic; The Dead Hub; Indie Rock Reviews, and; Metal Obsession. None are particularly well-known, but I need to be pulling as much as possible for the article because the album hasn't had mention in more prominent publications like Q, NME or CoS. I would like to know which of the above sources would be okay to use in the article. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Mue

Hello, can someone please fix the infobox in article Mue? It doesn't show the album name and type, I've tried everything I know without effect and it drives me nuts, thanks. --Murúg (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Adabow (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Hello, Sola2012 has recently updated some sales figures for the likes of Rihanna, Lady Gaga and Beyoncé with a source from the Spanish newspaper 20 minutos. Personally, I think some of these claims might be inflated (e.g. Born This Way at 7.5 million, 4 at 4 million), and I've reverted their edits, but I wanted to gather some opinion on what other editors thought about the article? Cheers, —JennKR | ☎ 20:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just realised that the article was published in December 2011, when some of those albums had only been been out for a few months. I'm not doubting whether this source is unreliable, these figures are way too high for that time, or even today. —JennKR | ☎ 20:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say the source IS unreliable: for starters, the author of the article appears to be a user of the site, and not a journalist or in any way professionally connected with the newspaper, so can't be used as a reliable source according to Wikipedia rules. Although I think the two sales figures you quote are not too far off (Born This Way has sold about 8 million copies worldwide and 4 about 3 million), some of the other claimed sales figures make no sense – for example, Michael Bublé's Christmas is quoted as having sold 1.4 million copies worldwide, and yet the UK's Official Charts Company states here that the album was the UK's second biggest seller of 2011 with 1.29 million sales... so are we supposed to believe that it only sold another 110,000 copies in the whole of the rest of the world combined, despite being No. 1 in several countries, including the USA, in the busiest sales period of the year? Without any sources to back up the author's figures, I would have to say that the article cannot be used as a verifiable source. Richard3120 (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It is user generated content, definitely not reliable and no indication that there has been research behind these numbers. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Skindred - Union Black

Why is this album not available in the U.S.? 20.132.64.141 (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)TERRANATH20.132.64.141 (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't you be better off asking their record company this question, instead of an online encyclopedia with absolutely no connection to the band? Richard3120 (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
These talk pages are for discussion on how to better articles within this project's scope, not random personal musings about albums. Sergecross73 msg me 21:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Albums considered the greatest

Please see this move discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Piero Scaruffi as a reliable and published source

There is a firm consensus against any change to any previous consenuss rearding Scaruffi, e.g., 1. Consensus does not consider him to be a priori, a reliable source. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contrary to the consensus reached on January 25, 2014, it appears that Piero Scaruffi's work, including his musical criticisms, have been widely published by renowned sources. Historians, critics and musicians have cited both his website and his books in their own published works (including: All Music Guide: The Definitive Guide to Popular Music, Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music and Music of the World War II Era). His review of Country Boy Country Dog by "Blue" Gene Tyranny" is presented in its entirety in the All Music Guide: The Definitive Guide to Popular Music (as seen on page 1126), taken from his original review for i/e magazine, issue 7. This implies that he is reputable within the field of musical criticism, as the editer's, Vladimir Bogdanov, Chris Woodstra and Stephen Thomas Erlewine saw fit to include his critical analysis in their publication. Also, looking over his resume (seen here, or, a secondary source), it appears that he has contributed essays, reviews and interview to Option, Sound Choice, CD Review, i/e, Rockerilla, Blow Up and New Sounds. Per WP:Self published sources, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As the consensus heavily relied on the false assertions that Scaruffi had no authority in musical criticism, I see this as reason enough re-examine and reconsider the conclusion reached by the aforementioned consensus. --Soul Crusher (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Update (5/2/14): I should also note that several popular recording artists have featured his critical examinations of their work on their official website, for example (Amy Denio, Constance Demby and Gayle Ellet). A few more books that cite his work: 1. Sympathy for the Devil: Art and Rock and Roll Since 1967, published under Yale University Press, in which Dominic Molon cites "The History of Rock Music" on page 237. 2. Women Drummers: A History from Rock and Jazz to Blues and Country, published under Scarecrow Press, in which percussionist and writer Angela Smith cites Scaruffi's book "A History of Rock and Dance Music" on page 133. He was also quoted at the billboard.com article concerning the passing of Johnny Otis, which derived quotes from A History of Rock Music, 1951-2000.--Soul Crusher (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that Wikipedia shouldn't be using quotes from ANY artist's personal website (obviously they are going to feature quotes by anybody who praises their work, regardless of their notability, which contravenes WP:POV), the Amy Denio site is not a "critical examination" of her work but just a link to a description of who she is and the music she has released, and the other two sites simply link to Scaruffi's personal blog, which as everybody has already discussed, does not count as a valid source. OK, so Molon and Smith cite Scaruffi's work – so what part of that would be useful to an album review for a particular artist? Richard3120 (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
NPOV does not required that we cannot use a primary source, only that it be balanced by other sources. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. "Consensus and policy was pretty clearly against this before, and I don't believe much/anything has changed." Except that published historians, critics and musicians have all cited Scaruffi's work, enforcing his credibility as a reliable source. As this wasn't mentioned in the consensus, I believe this fact requires further discussion.
  2. "I've never heard of any of the sources he contributes to, so I don't know if that helps or not." Whether or not you have heard of the magazine bears no weight on the reliability of the source. All of the magazines I listed are published. For references, here are their websites: Rockerilla, Blow Up, e/i Magazine (currently defunct, formerly i/e).
  3. "I really wish you'd concentrate on something else on the project rather than pushing him as a source." Please assume good faith.--Soul Crusher (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
On #2, my point was that I cannot attest to the reliability of those sources that supposedly feature his work. You haven't either, for the record, you merely said they featured his work. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I can run through some of the ones I have listed:
  • Several wrong assertions in the statement: there are not renowned sources 1) The source listing this writer's work in italian magazines, is the blog of this writer: so, that doesn't prove anything apart, that this writer has written his resume/biography at the third person on his own blog. 2) Other feeble source, the book "Music of the World War II" (that mentionned only one line about Scaruffi's blog in the notes, for "further reading"), was signed by two married professors, who are not in any way, two renowned sources. These professors are not famous music writers, linked to well known worldwide magazines or professional websites (like Spin, Rolling Stone, Mojo, Uncut, Q, Pitchfork amongst others). 3) Other feeble source, the book "Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music" (that also mentionned this writer's blog once in the notes) was edited by a musician who studied in University. This musician was not a professionnal music writer. 4) So, finally, there's only the "all music guide" book (that is not available for reading for European citizens) which is supposed to reproduce one review of this writer. This book was in fact edited, (which means compiled in parts), by several writers of "all music". It was made by several persons: nothing proves that these allmusic journalists agreed with the inclusion of this one and only review from this writer: it may be a decision from the publisher. To conclude, there aren't any famous recognized journalists, whose work is available on Rock's Backpages, here, that have ever recognized this writer. One could also cite this other book written in 2013 that qualified "Scaruffi's site" as a "fan site" : it is called Popular Music Culture, see the quote here. Woovee (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not at all, it's not signed, there's no fact checking. It's what this scientist said to this university about his hobby. So, this is not a secondary source, I put a longer explanation below.Woovee (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "the review of Country Boy Country Dog is acceptable because it is published in All Music Guide, a reliable source." My sentiments exactly. In addition to All Music Guide: The Definitive Guide to Popular Music, the magazines I've listed also fall under WP:Reliable Sources.
  • WP:NONENG - Much of Scaruffi's work is presented in both the English and Italian language, and besides "citations to non-English sources are allowed."
  • The assertion that Piero Scaruffi uses "blatant falsifications and misrepresentations in his writings" and is intentionally misleading the public would require better sourcing than the personal opinions of a Wikipedia user.--Soul Crusher (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I would say that other than work published by a third party, Piero Scaruffi should only be used in select case that especially warrant it - perhaps if one of his self-published reviews is quoted, referenced, or critiqued by another reviewer, or maybe for uncontroversial statements that are supported elsewhere. But for the most part, no. I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources should mention that there is some of his material in works published by a third party, and those are acceptable.--¿3family6 contribs 14:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your sentiments that "Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources should mention that there is some of his material in works published by a third party, and those are acceptable."--Soul Crusher (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as he's a non-professionnal reviewer and his site is a blog. Per wp:MOSALBUM#Critical reception: Professional reviews may include only reviews 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). Per WP:SELFPUBLISH: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. I'd also recall that the template for the albums reviews is presented with the following words: "Professional ratings, Review scores" . This writer doesn't fit in that category: he's a scientist who writes about music as a hobby. Plus, he doesn't work with an editor in chief and all his books are self-published. Woovee (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Another important point. On wiki, there is WP:NOTADVERTISING for a site, it is not a place for WP:SOAPBOXING: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. One may say that it could be this case here: an user has been lobbying towards a blog for 4 years, entering several thousands of entries leading to this non professionnal site (1000 entries per day, in January 2014). Let's note that brand new articles about two Italian Magazines (both cited in this writer's resume on his blog), were created yesterday 1 and 2. Woovee (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not correct: none of the italian magazines' websites mentionned the name of this writer. no verifiability possible.
  • The resume of "Scaruffi.com" is a primary source. This is not a wp:reliable source. That's PS who wrote it.
  • The other resume of the site (claiming he worked for magazines) http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/people/scaruffi/bio.html is also not a wp:reliable source: it was made by this writer too. There's no verifiability possible: he was a former member as it is shown on their site: http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/people/index.shtml This PS's resume is what this scientist stated to the webmaster of this university: there's no fact checking, it is not an article signed. Contractually in this type of presentation, he can say whatever he wants about his hobbies: he won't be fired by the university. Anyway, he's a former member: he doesn't work for them anymore. Even if he had written for one of these magazines, the source for a review/article can't be in any way an url of his blog.
  • He's not an expert recognized as such, as there's only one third source that published one text about music, it is "allmusic". The 2 other books that give one line with the name of its blog in the notes, are from obscure professors and writers, that were never published in a famous magazine/site, like Rolling stone.Woovee (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not a third-party source: it looks like the bio Scaruffi himself has provided to the university. Without proof that someone other than Scaruffi has written that, it can't be used in this discussion. Richard3120 (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree with the points made by the above editors. I could accept a one-off exception for the review published in the All Music Guide book (sourced to the book itself, not to the review from wherever it came from originally), since AMG is generally considered reliable itself, but again, this would be an exception. But the rampant addition of half-sentence reviews that was happening before should not happen again. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright, if the other sources pass WP:RS, please demonstrate how each of those sources has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (or more specifically, their authors/editors). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:Identifying Reliable Sources: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Per WP:Reliable Sources: "reliable sources include: university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers."--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Also per WP:RS, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I'll ask you again to show how these other sources have this reputation. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Woovee, Scarufi is a non-professional reviewer and his site is a blog. If he has been published then we can use that which was published from the published source. I am strongly opposed to assigning exemptions to this type of source because the "writer" has been published elsewhere. This might make sense for Christgau – though even with him I don't see any need to cite his website when he's been so widely published – but for Scarufi, it does not make sense. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
"Per Woovee" - The personal criteria of a Wikipedia user is irrelevant to whether or not a source is reliable. Also, seeing that he's arguing from his own criteria of what constitutes a reliable source instead of Wikipeda's, it is unwise to cite him. Please instead cite from the rules of Wikipedia as they are written.
"If he has been published then we can use that which was published from the published source." I am in agreement with this statement.--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE This is starting to sound like the, "Nazis are not a right wing party, they are leftist socialists" argument that has gone on for years because some editors feel that bringing the issue up again and again, in what appears to me to be an attempt to force something through by the internet version of the Chinese water torture, drip . . . drip . . . . drip . . . . until everyone goes mad. One of the principles of alchemy (at least as I tell it) was that if you do an experiment enough time suddenly there will be a different outcome. That seems to be the principle at play here. Carptrash (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that his critical analyses had been published under several sources meeting WP:Reliable Sources was not addressed in previous discussions. So no, the argument presented here is not identical to the one's before. Please assume good faith, read the discussion and address the claims that I have made.--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry that you chose to define my post as a lack of belief in your good faith. That is not the case, if anything you are exhibiting (to me) the faith of the newly converted. You have been out voted (or whatever) 7 or 8 to 0 and continue coming back with "Yeah . . . .but." Perhaps it is time to let this one drop? Carptrash (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion. Please address the claims that I have made.--Soul Crusher (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose (again) – I don't quite understand why this has resurfaced, but the arguments are the same as before. If a piece of Scaruffi's work is relevant and has been published somewhere reliable, then quote it from there, but his blog doesn't cut it. I agree with all the points made by Woovee, GabeMc et al. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "but the arguments are the same as before." They are not. The fact that his critical analyses had been published under several sources meeting WP:Reliable Sources was not addressed in previous discussions. Please read the discussion and address the claims that I have made.--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "If a piece of Scaruffi's work is relevant and has been published somewhere reliable, then quote it from there" I am in agreement with this statement, however Woovee would not. Before "agree[ing] with all the points made by Woovee", you should read the discussion.
Don't imply that I haven't read the discussion. The fact that Scaruffi's "critical analyses" have been published elsewhere (still) don't make his blog a reliable source, let alone a useful one. I do not consider the claims you are making to threaten the consensus we reached in January. Your last point is a non sequitur – I can agree with Woovee's points and still make a caveat, which I did. I should add that I have yet to see anything Scaruffi has written to be specifically relevant to any article, and which could not be replaced by something more professional and more pertinent. Perhaps you should just consider dropping the stick. I see you've claimed twice that I haven't read the discussion, so you're wrong twice. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Woovee is asserting that the sources I have mentioned do not fall under WP:Reliable Sources. I am curious to hear your take on this particular issue.
  • "Perhaps you should just consider dropping the stick." Please assume good faith.
  • "I see you've claimed twice that I haven't read the discussion, so you're wrong twice." I should have simply asked for clarification concerning your agreement with Woovee. I apologize, I was hurried when I responded.--Soul Crusher (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The sources mentioned above do not appear to be reliable sources in my opinion. I don't know how many others there might be. The Allmusic one might be reliable, but I can't see the exact piece in question, so I can't give a full opinion on it. If it were reliable, it would only be usable in an article about that album. Suggesting you drop the stick is not claiming bad faith on your part, I just feel that you've taken this as far as it's likely to go. No worries on the last part. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose using Scaruffi's blog as a source; but not opposed to citing Scaruffi if and when published in a reliable source, such as the aforementioned Allmusic Guide. FWIW I would also support – in general – using the publications Option and Sound Choice as WP:RS for music-related articles, although I am unfamiliar with Scaruffi's work for either of those magazines (or others). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have not asserted that Scaruffi's website should be cited as source in all circumstances.
  • "I would also support – in general – using the publications Option and Sound Choice as WP:RS for music-related articles" I am in agreement with you.--Soul Crusher (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do not find the evidence presented here to be sufficiently compelling to permit use of reviews from Scaruffi's website or his iUniverse/Omniware self-published books. I would not object to using reviews that appear in clearly reliable third-party sources.  Gongshow   talk 19:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "I would not object to using reviews that appear in clearly reliable third-party sources." I am in agreement with you.--Soul Crusher (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Can someone close this?

I won't do it myself this time, since I took a stance this time, but once again, we have 8+ opposes and a unanimous decision to oppose using PS as a source. It does seem most people are okay with using his published work, as long as the published work is what is being sourced, and it would be attributed as such (The magazine would be listed in review charts, not PS, and citations would be set up as something more like "PS of X magazine...", with a citation to the magazine.) I can add a note summarizing that in the notes/comments section of PS's entry in the unusable section. Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually Sergecross, I would appreciate it if this discussion was left open until it is discussed why books published under Hal Leonard Corporation, Routledge, Greenwood Publishing Group (all reputable companies) do not meet WP:Reliable Sources.--Soul Crusher (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Soul Crusher, it's the other way around. You have to show how they do meet WP:RS. Specifically, you still have not shown how they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This means that other reliable sources credit them as reliable (for example, if an article in Rolling Stone or The New York Times says something like "According to [source], [something that source said]." Whether they have been published by a certain publisher is not enough to show that they pass RS. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "Whether they have been published by a certain publisher is not enough to show that they pass RS." Could you elaborate on this point? Thank you.
  • The validity of a reliable source does not solely depend on Rolling Stone or The New York Times. However, you did remind me that his book A History of Rock Music, 1951-2000 is quoted on Billboard.com concerning the passing of popular vocalist Johnny Otis. Thank you for reminding me of this point.--Soul Crusher (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources need to pass all of WP:RS, not just one criteria. That's why I keep asking for evidence that these other sources you cite have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (as required in the first paragraph of the Overview section of WP:RS). As for the two sources I mentioned (RS and NYT), those were examples (thus why I used the wording "for example"). There are plenty of reliable sources that could reference the sources you are trying to claim as reliable. Billboard is a good one, and if you used that quote from that Billboard article as a reference in a Wikipedia article, that would be fine. But one mention in one RS does not automatically make everything Scaruffi has written reliable. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Soul Crusher, what totally baffles me is why you are so keen to see Scaruffi accepted as a reliable source, despite continuing overwhelming opposition to it. As far as album reviews are concerned there are plenty of other non-contentious sources from both the US and the UK, from music magazines (Rolling Stone, NME, Q, etc.) to newspapers with paid music reviewers (The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, etc.) to online music websites (Pitchfork Media, Spin, etc.). There should be plenty of choices of sources whose notability and reliability is not in question which could be used ahead of Scaruffi.

Even if we were to accept his inclusion as a reliable source, under the very criteria which you yourself accept – that we should not use reviews from his blog, only those from other reliable published sources – there must be very few actual reviews of his that could be used in album articles, so why the insistence on his inclusion if he is rarely useable anyway? The majority of the books you quote as proof that he can be used as a reliable source are either articles that he has written or which mention him personally, not album reviews that can be used in album articles on Wikipedia... which is the whole point of this discussion. I have no objection to, say, his views on Johnny Otis being quoted from Billboard on Johnny Otis' biographical article, but like I said, it seems an awful lot of discussion for someone who will be used very little on WP:ALBUMS itself. Richard3120 (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, these are precisely some of the reasons why I requested the discussion be closed. Its just a ton of arguing with little to gain, and no support, at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I have provided evidence that Mr. Scaruffi has authority in the realm of music criticism, proving that his status was inaccurately portrayed in the original discussion. I am concerned because User:Woovee saw fit to censor every mention of Mr. Scaruffi from all of Wikipedia with the exception of Mr. Scaruffi's own page. Initially, I disagreed with Woovee over whether or not Scaruffi's band interviews (Roy Montgomery, Trance Mission, Sulfur, etc.) should be cited, as I saw these as falling under WP:BLPSPS ("written or published by the subject" as being analogous to being spoken by the interviewee). He maintained that Mr. Scaruffi should be excluded in every instance. I then realized that Woovee had removed Scaruffi from a vast number of pages with topics well outside the realm of music, such as cognitive science and Ideami (where Mr. Scaruffi has lectured). This reaches far outside the boundaries of the consensus of January 25, 2014, which read "Piero Scaruffi's album/music reviews "Piero Scaruffi's album/music reviews are unusable as a source in any capacity."
I brought my concerns to User:Sergecross73 (discussion here), who moderated the original consensus and has since been backing User:Woovee by means of blocking users and locking pages. Then, he suggested that he possessed the authority to stretch the consensus beyond its limitations. I was shocked by the unilateral disregard for the information that is readily available on Mr. Scaruffi's achievements. Such a pronouncement is in complete disregard of the obvious proof that Mr. Scaruffi is an expert; therefore, I do not understand the basis of the decision besides as an unreasonable exercise of the power to censor. This complete censorship of materials, especially those that can be independently verified, could be interpreted as contrary to the rules.
I am raising this issue as a concerned patron of Wikipedia who regards that on-line encyclopedia as providing an invaluable service. Many users throughout the world, including myself, regard Wikipedia as supportive of the free and untrammeled distribution of information in the best tradition of First Amendment rights. I am very proud to be part of this tradition and have been responsible in my role as a contributor. Stating that there is little "support" is a classic argument for censorship when logic fails. No one is advocating rampant references to Piero Scaruffi, just that the materials be utilized in a responsible manner.--Soul Crusher (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh please. In the January discussion, its very clear that PS was deemed unusable as a source. You've tried to twist my own words on the discussion to try to use him anyways, and this new April/May rehash of the debate, where you've failed to gain a single supporter, just goes to prove that consensus dictates he's unusable. While Woovee's distaste for PS is confusing, your insistence on using him is even more troubling. Your talk page suggests you've been on this crusade since at least 2010. I'm concerned you're not editing for the right reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 02:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't wish to take sides or get involved in any disagreement between you and Woovee, Soul Crusher. But this is WP:ALBUMS and I am only concerned with Piero Scaruffi's inclusion or not on these pages. You seem to agree with January's consensus that Scaruffi's music reviews should not be used – whether or not his work should be used on pages regarding his other areas of interest, I cannot say because I know little about them, but I don't think it is relevant or should be discussed on WP:ALBUMS. You say you have provided "obvious proof" that Mr. Scaruffi is an music expert, yet you have failed to convince a single person of your argument. At the end of the day, if you agree that 99% of his music reviews cannot be used because they come from his personal blog, I don't see much point in persisting to argue for his inclusion. That isn't censorship, just an acceptance of the facts. Richard3120 (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Woovee is making edits that go beyond the consensus reached here at WikiProject Albums, which is my reasoning for first addressing here. The original consensus asserted that Mr. Scaruffi had no authority in musical criticism, but his inclusion in various publications (especially All Music Guide: The Definitive Guide to Popular Music and Billboard.com) seems to prove otherwise. As most users here were alerted to this discussion by User:Woovee, there are definite indications of black-listing and/or censorship. He identified and summoned users that all took the oppositional stance on the prior consensus and thought he could effectively silence me. I called for a discussion, but this limited sample of users are already biased and seem more interested in opposing for the sake of opposing.--Soul Crusher (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and I've already told Soul Crusher that I neither support or condemn PS's use as a source in non-music articles. I told him that I'm not familiar with things like his "Ideami", and that he should find a relevant talk page or Wikiproject to discuss his use there.Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Friendly advice from anonymous (logged-out) editor: SC's massive promotional spamming of thousands of links to PS and his continued pattern of tendentious editing strongly suggests he has a conflict of interest. His single-purpose-account should probably be banned as not here to build an encyclopedia or at least permanently topic banned from anything related to PS.2602:30A:2ECA:C150:ED8C:4D95:DF02:F28E (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Please provide evidence of "my continued pattern of tendentious editing". I am not a single-purpose-account. I have been editing for Wikipedia since March of 2006 and have created over 1,000 articles unrelated to Mr. Scaruffi (See Here). Per WP:SPA, "the timeline of a user’s edits should not be considered when using single-purpose account tags. One must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits." Also, I have not once cited Mr. Scaruffi in the critical reception section of an album article since the last consensus. Your vitriolic accusation is completely off-topic and unjustified.--Soul Crusher (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I know. He's been given a final warning. Sergecross73 msg me 01:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
For completely unfounded reasons you might add. Regardless, this discussion does not concern how I have utilized Mr. Scaruffi's website as a source in the past. It concerns whether or not he has authority in musical criticism.--Soul Crusher (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. And consensus has shown unanimously on 2 straight discussions that he does not. Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Contrary to evidence proving otherwise.--Soul Crusher (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
You have not, and it's ludicrous to think that an entire WikiProject has two times over unanimously ignored policy to oppose you. You said "Hey, a handful of publications used a handful of his reviews." If you can prove any of those to be reliable (I don't think you have yet.) then maybe those could be included. But the rest of his work fails WP:SPS, plain and simple. Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
You're trying to argue that All Music Guide: The Definitive Guide to Popular Music (quoting Scaruffi's review for i/e magazine) and Billboard.com (quoting his book A History of Rock Music, 1951-2000) are not reliable sources? Well, I disagree with you.--Soul Crusher (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not that. It's this. It appears he's written hundreds of reviews. AMG published hundreds of reviews. Of that, what is the overlap? One review. A handful? The problem is around 99% of his work is unpublished or self-published. That leaves 99% of his work unusable, and a mere 1% usuable or even debatable. Which is why a number of editors stance is simply "What's the point?" Sergecross73 msg me 10:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Not to mention that, other than AMG and Billboard, you have not proven any of your other sources to pass WP:RS. Right now I think we're in WP:SNOWBALL territory, and Soul Crusher, maybe it's time for you to move on. Surely there are other ways for you to improve Wikipedia, without needing to use a contentious and likely non-reliable source? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've done a bit of Googling and I think I know who you are, Soul Crusher, and will state publicly that you are neither Scaruffi nor a relative, although you are clearly a big fan of all his work, not just in the field of music. I think the problem is looking at the definition of WP:SPS right at the beginning of this thread: the key word is "established". The only article I can find about Scaruffi is this one from the New York Times here, and it certainly makes no claims for him being a music "expert", just that he is a mathematician and scientist... who happens to be a obsessive fan of music, as well as films, art, etc. From the limited bits and pieces I can find on the internet, his contributions to Rockerilla and Blow Up in Italy are artist interviews, not album reviews. And apart from the AMG review, none of the other sources you quote as evidence in your argument are music reviews, so how would they be used in WP:ALBUMS anyway? I should point out that as far as I am aware (and please correct me if I am wrong), A History of Rock Music and his other music books are simply collections of his artist biographies and album rankings copied directly from his website.

So with no external sources to establish his notability as a music reviewer, the only way of establishing it on Wikipedia is to hold a debate like this one and reach a consensus, and both times the overwhelming view has been against the use of his reviews from his website. I'm sorry that you disagree with this result, but that's what a democratic, majority vote has decided. Richard3120 (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notability and inclusion of albums

Please contribute to a discussion of notability and inclusion of albums at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Albums are sub-topics. --Rob (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Albums At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Watch the Lamb

The article Watch the Lamb has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article adds absolutely nothing to Wikipedia: apart from the producer, everything on this page could be deduced via a quick search of Ray Boltz on iTunes. It has no sources, and has been on Wikipedia for 7 years and is still just as lacking in info now as it was then.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Johnny338 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_47&oldid=1140397050"