Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 71

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65 ← Archive 69 Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 Archive 73

British EP articles nominated to be deleted:

The following British EP articles have been nominated to be deleted:

The British EP scene of the 1960s was an important development in record history and I feel these historic documents need to be kept on wikipedia. How about you? However I am not really up to arguing about these, and probably more to follow, developments. If you all think these should go, so be it, but all these nominations are from one editor and, well let’s see if they represent everyones thinking. Oh yes, all The Shadows EPs did chart in Britain. Carptrash (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing special about 1960s British EPs that makes them not subject to WP:V, WP:OR, etc. If you don't have sources establishing notability, they should be redirected to the appropriate target until or unless you get them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is (opinion) only made stronger by the inclusion of niche articles that might not appeal to everyone. We have 6 and a half million articles, so they are not all for everyone. I believe (another opinion) that the British EPs era (ca. 1960 to 1967) is one of those corners and that these articles casts a little light there. Our article, List of number-one EPs in the United Kingdom, (which goes from 1960 until 1967) shows that wikipedia does recognize this era, and as in all (most?) such situations, we are not just concerned with #1 songs. I also feel that serious editors should leave other serious editors alone when there is no harm being done. Also these articles were put up for deletion on Oct. 27 and 28 (I think) and are now (Oct. 31), gone, along with their covers. They had been there for 5 years or so, so what is the rush? These three, The Shadows No. 2 and The Shadows No. 3 and Rhythm & Greens were then folded into (what ever the term is) The Shadows discography where they are still blue links connected to the same article that they are now in. This is way-to-fast editing and pretty sloppy at that. I’d like to see the articles returned. For those who just must have rules I will toss in Ignore all rules. Carptrash (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
This is getting dangerously close to canvassing... Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
So how are folks who might be interested supposed to know about this? I thought that is what talk pages are for. No? Well that's what i get for thinking. Carptrash (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
You're free to bring it up here, but it's supposed to be done neutrally, you're not supposed to be pushing a stance while you're at it. If I can tell your stance by the notification discussions, you're not doing it right. Sergecross73 msg me 21:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
You've been told quite clearly in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long John's Blues (EP) that these claims need to be backed up by reliable sources, and you haven't provided any. If said coverage doesn't exist then those articles should be deleted; the information is unverified and that's explicitly against the rules. Simple as that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Fine, I'll verify it from the record. Carptrash (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Rather than deleted, redirecting is completely appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is (opinion) only made stronger by the inclusion of niche articles that might not appeal to everyone." Agreed. It's also not a place that publishes original research, so if you have sources discussing this obscure topics, I think it's fantastic to include them. If not, then this is just you saying, "Hey guys, this stuff matters, I swear!" and it's not really up to us to gatekeep what is and isn't important: we are just reactive to what has sources discussing it. This is a consequence of looking for verifiability, not truth. If there are a billion article about some Katy Perry album and none about a Shadows EP, then we have content about the Katy Perry album and not the Shadows EP. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no original research here. Everything in the articles comes from the record covers .That three of the four EPs under discussion have already been removed, after, what, 3 days? does little to improve my mood. Which will only get worse, I suspect, after meeting with my oncologist in an hour or so from now. Carptrash (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
You need sources that are verifiable, reliable, and third party that provide significant coverage to establish notability. Every record has a sleeve: that doesn't show that there's anything special (read: "notable") about these releases. If your cousin's band put out some album in 2003 and said, "Hey, it's got a record sleeve!", do you think it would merit an article here? Note that notability is not inherited, therefore, the raft of semi-legal Beatles compilations from Malaysia or Peru that had 3,000 copies pressed in 1988 are not here or every fly-by-nite compilation of the same recycled Merle Haggard tracks sold at a truck stop. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
All three of these EPs charted in Britain as per Brown, Tony, Jon Kutner & Neil Warwick, The Complete Book of the British Charts: Singles and Albums, Omnibus Press, London, 2002. That should fit into most of your requirements. i think I included the Columbia Records/EMI Records catalog (or whatever) number for each, so no Peru or Malalsia. Carptrash (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Charting in one place is a start, but the problem is that there isn't sustained coverage from multiple sources. Having several books that just state "this was #17 on November 1, 1960" is not going to withstand an AfD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Confirming a passage in WP:ALBUMSTYLE

Regarding the liner notes, this section (which I was one of the authors of: full disclosure) notes that we do not need to reproduce liner notes as written: several examples of why include deliberately false liner notes such as on My Chartreuse Opinion or incomplete ones, such as lacking any reference to Jarvis Cocker on Everything That Happens Will Happen Today, or extraneous "credits" like special thanks or references to unrelated personnel like a band's touring front of house. Is it the case that we agree that album articles can have personnel sections that diverge from the liner notes for a number of reasons? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's even an important rule for style reasons. There have been at least a couple articles where the liner notes were written in such a way that wouldn't gel with usual Wikipedia style so I had to rework them in various ways, and I don't see any issue with that so long as the information is still the same. I see no reason why this rule should change/not be in place. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
And to be clear, if the information is not the same, but factual changes are supported by sources and common sense, it's okay to ignore whatever is in the liner notes in favor of factual accuracy, verifiability, etc., correct? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
If you have sources clearly demonstrating the inaccuracy then I would certainly say so. Sorry if my statement was off-topic, I guess I didn't fully understand the question you were asking. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, I am asking in the general and trying to apply it to a particular case, so I apologize if I'm being too obscure. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Koavf is trying to drum up support for an editing dispute at Talk:Hackney_Diamonds#Personnel_order. This is about the new Rolling Stones album, Hackney Diamonds. Sessions for the album began when Charlie Watts was alive and in the band. He passed away and most of the album was recorded without him. The liner notes for the album list Jagger, Richards and Wood as being The Rolling Stones and list the late Watts' appearance on two tracks separately. Some of us feel the article should follow that. Koavf feels the album article should list the band on the album as Jagger, Richards, Watts and Wood. Further input there is welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, there is no debate as to what Watts played on. We all accept that Watts played on 2 tracks. This is just about where he is listed. Bondegezou (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Unlike Wyman, Watts was a member of the band when the recording sessions began. However, the band (or Mick, at least), in the context of this October 2023 release, consider the membership to be Jagger, Richards, Wood. Aside from their music, the Stones are most known for their business, organizational, image, likeness, etc., savvy (ruthlessness?). Frankly, since Tattoo You, they may be more known for this. It's hard to dispute that this is how the Stones define themselves in October 2023. And yeah, sometimes the liner notes aren't accurate re: songwriting (Beyonce), but that's for the lawyers. I do think credit policies need to be revisited in another forum; like all the permutations of track listings, credits shouldn't overwhelm the prose (not the case with HD). We don't need the special thanks, the four stylists, the three exec. producers, all nine kids on the backing chorus of track 8... Caro7200 (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I think the article’s prose does a good job of describing the history of the sessions, which is the most important thing. But, yes, we also have a credits section and today, now, in 2023, I think it’s clear that the band defines itself as Jagger, Richards and Wood, so we should reflect that. Bondegezou (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
And if an album that was recorded in 1970 came out today, should we say that the personnel doesn't include Mick Taylor and Bill Wyman, since they are no longer members of the band? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
If the credits on the release only list specific band members, then I think it makes more sense to follow that than argue about these tiny issues which are way too open to personal interpretation to draw a consensus on. As was said above, the situation is already thoroughly explained in the article, so it's not like it's entirely reasonable to be confused by the way the credits are handled. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous analogy, Koavf. Hackney Diamonds is not an archival release. It is an album mostly recorded after Watts' death. Bondegezou (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Questionable release date and/or reliance on an outlier web source for Talk:The Pinkprint

There has been something of an edit tussle for the release date of Nicki Minaj's album The Pinkprint. Although there are no three edit reversions per day, it is still becoming an edit war, which I don't want to be involved in, so I would like more experienced editors to look into this issue and either tell me to back off or to provide a more authoritative support.

I have attempted to take the issue to the album's talk page, and although I am not neutral, I have attempted to start the discussion neutrally before providing my opinions.

I would ask some additional eyes take a look at Talk:The Pinkprint#Release date for album - December 12 or December 15 - Also about if one should disregard a reliable source, and weigh in with their opinions, or even supporting or opposing Wikipedia guidelines. Mburrell (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

AllMusic's sidebar gone

AllMusic has updated their look, and I noticed that they ditched the infamous sidebars ([1][2][3]). It looks like they relocated this information to the top of a page and replaced the sidebar with a table of contents. As a result, should we reword any occurrence of "AllMusic's sidebar", such as at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure. It could be "AllMusic's genre and mood descriptions" or somesuch. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I took so long, but I've changed "sidebar" to "summary". If there's another word that better describes the new look, feel free to replace it. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Stereotype (Karl Wolf album) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stereotype (Karl Wolf album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotype (Karl Wolf album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 64#Overly long ranking lists

Users. People who write here. I need to ask. What are you all doing? I mean, putting year-end ending rankings on the level of ratings of reviews? Making WP:WHOCARES statements ("Do we need to know the album was rated 3rd by the Yahoo! Entertainment staff, or 42nd in some PopMatters listicle? There's no discussion of these rankings (or rankers), we just list this random "information".")? Pushing a point-of-view towards the sources that have zero to do with reliability, making random speculations about it being "clickbait"? Complaining about having to read them WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("These tables are way too long and should be cut down.")? Just, what the fuck, people? Are any of you even here to build an encyclopedia? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Vaguely accusing an entire Wikiproject of NOTHERE is neither constructive nor appropriate. Change your approach or this'll be archived. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
What needs to be changed of my approach? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Serge, just... can you just read these comments please?
  • "Do we need to know the album was rated 3rd by the Yahoo! Entertainment staff, or 42nd in some PopMatters listicle? There's no discussion of these rankings (or rankers), we just list this random "information"."
  • "*gag* *choke* *hurl* No fewer than three items in that table are articles titled "So Far". What utter rubbish. Maybe we need an article like Best clickbait article (so far) or Clickbait of the month? "
  • " the Folklore list may be "non-exhaustive" but it sure is exhausting to scroll past!"
  • "After listing the biggest publications, it's probably implied that it would have made other lists as well. We should keep what is most useful to the average reader and avoid beating anyone over the head with the point that an album was a regular on various lists. "
  • "Some of those lists are way, way too long."
  • "the newer year-end rankings fit entirely in the clickbait trends of recent years"
Do these look like users trying to make the article more encyclopedic? These look like users that are complaining they have to read or do not know how to scroll past a section. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
"Useful to the average reader." A user seriously used the WP:ITSUSEFUL/WP:NOTUSEFUL rationale. Can you have a bit of awareness and open your eyes? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I am happy to engage in all of the points in the discussion like they are legitimate and worthy of being engaged with, but you have no clue how much they are not. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
To my knowledge, these are all experienced editors in good standing to the community. Accusing them of being NOTHERE just because you disagree with their editing philosophy and conclusions from a discussion 2 years ago is wildly inappropriate. This is a complete failure of WP:AGF. This is not how one opens a constructive discussion. Try again once you've cooled off. Sergecross73 msg me 22:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Greatest Hits... So Far!!! (Pink album)#Requested move 16 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Greatest Hits... So Far!!! (Pink album)#Requested move 16 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — MaterialWorks 23:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about the function of {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and similar Metacritic template

There is currently a discussion at {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} in regards to listing it and similar Metacritic templates as a substonly template that may interest editors of this WikiProject. The discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding User-Oriented Websites

I was wondering why sites like Rate Your Music are considered unreliable, as the most I was able to find about this was a conversation back in 2009. Are sites like RYM too blog-oriented for Wikipedia?

I ask since a lot of critic-based websites get more blacklash these days. For example, Celine Dion was left off Rolling Stone Magazine's greatest singers list, which caused her own fans to protest. They also ranked Cardi B's Invasion of Privacy as the 16th best rap album ever, which honestly seemed like pure clickbait.

I'm not arguing places like Rolling Stone shouldn't be cited anymore, but in the internet age, the different tastes that music critics and everyday listeners have seem to get more different as time goes on, and that should perhaps be reflected in the Critical Reception pages of Wikipedia album articles. Cahlin29 (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure publications like Rolling Stone were making controversial decisions like that decades ago, and we just don't know about them because either we weren't there to hear the response or that response wasn't happening online at the time (whether pre-internet or just pre-mass adoption of the internet). If the fan reception of an album were an important part of its story, then publications would report it somewhere and then it could be included. But opening up to sites like RYM which have no editorial standards could create all sorts of potential issues related to the unreliability of information getting posted there or too much fancruft crowding out reliable sources. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok, that makes more sense. Appreciate you taking the time to respond. Cahlin29 (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Fancruft I had never heard this term before. Do you happen to know where "cruft" came from? Is it "crust" with a medial s ("cruſt")? TlonicChronic (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
@TlonicChronic per wikt:cruft, it is "Possibly blend of crust +‎ fluff" and originated at MIT. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! TlonicChronic (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Merging articles

When two albums are merged, is there anything extra that needs to be done to talk page other than copying it over? Is the revision log something that requires special care? And how do I update the free use claim on the (moved) cover image so that that it can be displayed on the merged page without being deleted for copyright infringement? TlonicChronic (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I figured out how to edit the location for non free-use files (I hadn't ever been to a file: page before)—but I'd still love confirmation re: talk page and log TlonicChronic (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
A little short on time at the moment, but skimming though WP:MERGE should answer most of your questions I think. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I've read it, and I believe I have done everything asked. I suppose I'm more wondering if I'm incorrect in assuming there is nothing else to do? TlonicChronic (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm totally burying the lead here, sorry: A Date with Jimmy Smith, Vols. One and Two TlonicChronic (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the link, and happy holidays! TlonicChronic (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Reviewers and scores

Many articles I come across say something like "X of Y gave Z n stars, stating, 'p' and 'q'".

But a lot of editorials treat scores very different from reviews. My understanding is that the reviewer for places like pitchfork and allmusic don't even have a say on the score, it's determined by a separate panel of editors. Is there a covenient way to separate the score from the reviewer without being clunky? I've tried "In a n-star review for Y, X stated, "p" and "q", but this still feels awkward. Should the score be left to the reception box and the text to the reception section? TlonicChronic (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I've tried to account for this with {{AMG text}}, if that's useful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I had never seen that before. Is there a way to discover useful templates like this? TlonicChronic (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
My personal preference is just to leave the ratings out of prose entirely, as I find they always look clunky there and are better explained visually via {{music ratings}}. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I was personally leaning this way if nothing obvious presented itself; if the editors separate rating and text, it makes sense on wiki to me too. What do you think Justin's solution above? Seems like an efficient way of not having to decide on wording to me. TlonicChronic (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Tlonic, saw your post on the jazz page as well. I also separate the ratings and grades from the prose. Aside from those pages I forgot to remove from my watch list, I'm not following your edits. If you're starting new articles or fleshing out sections, great. If you're rewriting prose simply to rewrite it, you may eventually encounter resistance. "Standardization" is more for infoboxes, templates, section order, etc., per the style advice. So long as sentences are grammatically correct, editors have the freedom to write prose how they see fit. Again, not sure of your plans, but it's not necessary to rephrase things simply to rephrase things. Take care. Caro7200 (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't planning on re-standarding the reception, but I was hoping to be able to change ones that implied (or directly state) that writer gave the review, and I wanted to make sure that If I get around to adding a couple missing albums I can add the AllMusic review in a convenient way, and I did want to change the "The authors of the Penguin Guide" to either have the authors names because they're always the same, or remove "The authors" as it's redundant (it didn't write itself). I always appreciate oversight, and if you think that's too much let me know! TlonicChronic (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
That template is specifically designed to work with AllMusic, as you can see from that part of the text being populated by default, and isn't customizable to work with other publications. If you really want the ratings in prose then it's useful for that, sure, but clearly limited. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
thank you! TlonicChronic (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Number of album articles

Is there any way to know how many albums have articles, or any other related statistics? TlonicChronic (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to answer your question with another question - because I don't know the answer - but why would you want to know? There are plenty of ways to numerate specific kinds of albums, that's what categories are for, but the exact number of all studio albums on Wikipedia? An interesting, but I can't imagine why useful, question. dannymusiceditor oops 02:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Pure curiously TlonicChronic (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
According to the statistics on the project page, there are over 400,000 articles. I think that comes from the number of article talk pages that link to this project, so it's not exactly the answer to your question, but it provides an approximate number. EddieHugh (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 Done Thank you! So {{user|DISEman}} has created nearly two percent of all album articles... that absolutely blows my mind TlonicChronic (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I count closer to 150,000 articles. The 400,000 total also includes lists, redirects, categories, files, templates, etc. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
That's really cool! Thank you. That number seems pretty reasonable to me, too. TlonicChronic (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Album importance

Just learned that album importance was voted out many months before I joined (fair enough, makes sense to me). I was wondering if the Project Albums talk page (or the album pages themselves) were (eventually) going to be updated, or if the importance is effectively put on hiatus. TlonicChronic (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're referring to album articles which have the banner still with importance listed, I don't think it actually matters that the parameter is still there. You can remove them if you like, but as far as I know it's just text taking up space and doing no harm so it doesn't really need any concerted effort. I think we had a discussion about that matter recently and the conclusion was much the same then. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
"doing no harm so it doesn't really need any concerted effort." / "...discussion about that matter recently..."
 Done Makes sense!
"You can remove them if you like"
I figured I wouldn't mess with it at all, just curious! TlonicChronic (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
My answer would have been the same as QuietHere's, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed article split for Rattle and Hum

I'm proposing an article split for Rattle and Hum and would like some feedback. The subject in question is both an album and documentary film by U2, and the article currently covers both topics. While there is some overlap between the two, I think they should each have their own articles. We're looking for some feedback at Talk:Rattle and Hum#Propose to split into two articles. Thanks. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hits

This website has been added in several articles lately. Such as this edit and this edit. Should this website be used for album sales, single dates, etc.? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: The two edits were made by two different people (Infsai (talk · contribs) and Deeeogo (talk · contribs)) six weeks apart, it hardly seems to be a large-scale problem. I cannot find any prior discussion on this, nor any evidence that the two edits were reverted let alone disputed. Nor is there any indication that WP:RFCBEFORE has been exhausted; so why have you gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC for what appears to be a small matter? --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
We do source discussions on WT:ALBUMS all the time, so no harm in having a regular discussion to see if it belongs on WP:RSMUSIC or WP:NOTRSMUSIC. I have seen people ask about it before on music article talk pages. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I've got no problem with a regular discussion; nor even with sending it to WP:RSN if people can't agree here. What I don't agree with is the idea that RfC is something to be used as a first step, and not as it is intended to be - a last resort when all other methods have failed. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. I just meant we could continue on here without the RFC tag. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I've been adding this website as a source, since not only last source for the US radio adds has been down since September 2023, but also because it was already present in articles. It also matches whenever the songs were added to the radio looking by the charts, so I thought it was okay, and that it was already discussed to be a good source. infsai (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Infsai: Radio adds don't count as singles according to WP:SINGLE?. As Heartfox pointed out, the Hits source doesn't have dates, and radio stations can add anything; it's not proof the song is being promoted. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheAmazingPeanuts: Then why in the same essay you linked, there is a mention that radio impact date is "also known as 'going for adds'"? Maybe it's my poor English skill that I don't understand the real intention behind that sentance, but for me it looks like radio add recaps are literally that. infsai (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Infsai: I admit that I didn't notice that at first. I guess radio adds do count as singles as long as they are officially released by the record label. I don't recognize the website very well, so you probably know the website better than I do, since you have been adding it to articles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Redrose64: The reason for starting the RfC is because recently some editors added these sources [4] and [5] in the articles "First Person Shooter" and "You Broke My Heart". My main issue is that there's never been a serious discussion about whether this website should be considered reliable. There's a list of sources for singles considered reliable at WP:SINGLE?. but Hits is not on the list. Another editor responded to me at here, and they don't think it's reliable either. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Your last link goes to a thread started by yourself at 06:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC), two days before you started the thread here. You should have linked that in your first post above; ideally, that post should have directed people to participate in the existing discussion, rather than give the impression that it was a totally new topic. By failing to do that, you have not just gone against WP:RFCBEFORE but also against WP:FORUMSHOP.
Since you have mentioned WP:SINGLE?, I should also say that the proper place to discuss the content of that page is its own talk page - which just happens to be Wikipedia talk:Singles criteria. I won't close this discussion myself, I'll leave it for a WP:ALBUMS member to do. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Music is an industry. There are real people and teams behind radio pushes. Radio stations aren’t playing album tracks on their own after the first week or two of release. Even if an artist is getting cuts played on the radio after an album is freshly released, it’s likely through some sort of iHeart deal. So if a song is consistently getting adds, consistently charting AND getting promo through sources besides radio, like playlisting or a music video (a very big indicator). Playlisting not so much, but that is an obvious indication of investment. Who’s paying for a RapCaviar #1 spot if it’s a song they don’t want to invest in? Logic, man. No, not the rapper named logic. The “use your head” logic. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:9DDD:F8E1:EE01:B855 (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
And just to add to the discussion and show that I'm not here to ruffle feathers, I'll answer the question about Hits' reliability.
It should not be used for first week album sales as they only publish projections that forecast what the Billboard 200 will look like for that week. Sometimes they're very accurate, sometimes they're off from the actual results, whether it's pertaining to position, sales or both.
However, I'd argue that it can be used as a reliable source for album sales throughout the year. Don't quote me on this but Hits is known to have access to Luminate data which they use to tabulate mid/year-end reports. The difference between it and the Luminate-powered Billboard 200? Hits includes pre-release units. This is likely how they're able to publish a song revenue chart indicating sales and streams to a T weekly and at the end of each year. 2601:1C2:1801:D80:9DDD:F8E1:EE01:B855 (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Eminent Jay Jay Johnson, Vols. 1 & 2#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Eminent Jay Jay Johnson, Vols. 1 & 2#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Shortened titles

The Boy Bands Have Won and Most of the Remixes both start with "[X][a] is the shortened title of..." - with the [a] denoting a footnote with the actual album title.

This seems to violate WP:REFERS, which says that article first sentences should be about the subject not the name, and also breaks what seems to be usual Wikipedia practice of using the full name in the lead, including for quite long names - see for example Leone Sextus Tollemache or Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960, at an Elevation of about 1450 Meters on Cerro Quemazón, 15 Miles South of Bahía de Los Angeles, Baja California, México, Apparently for a Southeastward Range Extension of Some 140 Miles.

When the Pawn... takes a slightly different approach and begins "When the Pawn...[a] is the second studio album by..." - at least not breaking WP:REFERS but still relegating the official album title to a footnote.

I thought I'd bring it here as I was about to edit the Chumbawamba one, but it seemed like it would be sensible to have a coordinated approach. I think the When the Pawn approach is better than the other one, but I wonder if there's an argument for including the full title in the first sentence? TSP (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it particular helps the reader to list off these purposefully excessive long titles in the opening sentence. It only hurts readability, and in both cases, there's both a footnote and album art image that shows the full title for those who wish to read it all. Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't disagree that "is the shortened title of" is a bit silly and possibly against policy as was stated, and I wouldn't argue against its removal from both articles. I also agree with Serge that having the full title outside of a footnote is a bad idea, and the footnote system we have now is adequate to deliver that information. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Canoe.com

The external link for Canoe.com seems to now be a gambling website? What is the correct website if it is still up? Kuulopuhe (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact many of the external links seem to be dead or changed. Kuulopuhe (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
When I went to its article - Canoe.com - it gave me this link - https://canoe.com/ - which is different. I honestly don't know if that's correct either though - I don't recall using the source in the past, and my link makes it look more like TMZ celebrity gossip tabloid than a music website. Sergecross73 msg me 18:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:E (Epik High album)#Requested move 10 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:E (Epik High album)#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eternal Sunshine (album)#Requested move 11 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eternal Sunshine (album)#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 22:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Track listing styles

I have edited many album articles and per my understanding of MOS:VAR, MOS:RETAIN, and WP:ALBUMSTYLE, there are three ways to style track listings (plain lists, using {{track listing}}, and a table) and all three are valid, but if there is an existing style at a certain article, that style should remain, just like with MOS:ENGVAR issues or different citation styles. I have seen some argue that {{track listing}} should be mandatory. Can I confirm that my interpretation before is correct and that the community here is in favor of retaining that standard? To put a finer point on it, this has come up at Hood Hottest Princess and Close to Home (Aitch album) multiple times, which were created with plain styles and have had {{track listing}} added. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

See also In the End (album) and Inbred (EP). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I write and maintain a lot of album articles, and I don't see disputes about this hardly at all. I always use the template, and whenever I've rewritten an album article, I've switched bare lists to the template version, and I've never had anyone contest it. (Granted, I believe many of the album articles I've rewritten like that were likely relatively obscure, so it could be that no one noticed too.)
I have no strong feelings on it, I didn't even know this was a point of contention. I always thought the bare lists were acceptable but not preferred, kind of like bare urls to formatted references. Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Per MOS:ALBUM#Track listing, the template is used for "more complicated situations", which I find tends to not apply that much for many older albums that were written by one person or by the same group of people. This actually is an issue that has come up (in more recent memory) at OK Computer. Many modern albums I believe warrant the template as a lot of the time you have numerous writers and different producers that benefit from it. It's mainly older albums from the 60s-90s I find have issues. I used the template one things like Hunky Dory and but didn't bother on things Darkness on the Edge of Town and never received pushback. So it might just be preference. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm usually working in 1990s-present rock related articles. Hasn't exactly been a hot button issue there. To each their own. It's not something I would have argued about if someone had ever contested it. I don't really care much as long as the info is there and understandable. Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
This discussion seems related to my query below; I'd love your input if you have a sec! TlonicChronic (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Confide in Me

While it is correct, that "Come In from the Rain" and "Too Shy to Say" had been previously released by its writers Melissa Manchester and Stevie Wonder, respectively, the same is not true in regard of "Confide in Me". Manchester has not released this song until now as a part of her coming album "Re:View" on February, 2023.

Compare here: Searching for Melissa Manchester and Confide in Me only brings results containing Diana Ross https://www.discogs.com/search?limit=250&q=melissa+manchester+confide+in+me&type=all&page=1

Info on her upcoming album Re:View and "Confide in Me" https://music.apple.com/us/album/re-view/1706173550 92.78.96.210 (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this should probably be moved to the talk page of the article in question (I assume Baby It's Me?) TlonicChronic (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
It is you really need to say that I am very proud of all your su 2001:18C0:27:D000:EFD8:8C28:D9E2:F445 (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Beekeeper#Requested move 15 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Beekeeper#Requested move 15 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Incredible Jimmy Smith at the Organ#Requested move 16 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Incredible Jimmy Smith at the Organ#Requested move 16 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Alternate track listings

There is currently a discussion about when alternate track listings should be included in album articles. It's at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Alternate track listings. Interested editors are encouraged to give their opinions there (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 18:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Early Years of a Genius, 44–48#Requested move 19 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Early Years of a Genius, 44–48#Requested move 19 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_71&oldid=1204102735"