Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconAlbums Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Best-of lists[edit]

I have added several dozen (hundreds?) of sources to album articles where the critical reception puts it on best of lists. E.g. see the tables at The Greater Wings. I added a number of these today and Ariaslaga removed one as "fluff". If other users think these are inappropriate, I'm not going to keep on adding hundreds to just be removed and waste my time. Do others agree that this shouldn't be added? If others agree with me, then someone please undo this removal. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can’t you undo it yourself? Are you trying to get people to proxy for you? Ariaslaga (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am under an editing restriction and cannot undo anyone's edits. I am asking the community to see the consensus around this because I don't want to have my work undone hundreds of times over. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. What is the editing restriction for, if you don’t mind my asking? Ariaslaga (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't at all: it's public knowledge. I have engaged in edit-warring, which is inappropriate. Hence, I am seeking to abide by the dispute resolution process, which includes getting a third party to comment, including via WikiProjects. If I am doing something inappropriate now, please let me know. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Dude, stand up for yourself. It sounds like whoever put that restriction on you was trying to make you humiliate yourself going forward as some kind of a power play. Don’t let them have that. I’ll revert myself on your behalf, it’s not that big of a deal to me. Just please don’t be a beta, you’re better than that. Everyone is better than that. Ariaslaga (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's nothing like that: my behavior was wrong and the community was valid to sanction me. I appreciate your time and encouragement. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely terrible advice. Don't give unsolicited advice like this. Justin is handling things correctly, and your advice would do nothing but cause trouble. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: I'm not sure they're going to see your message as they were blocked a week ago (a little harshly, to be honest, I don't see any evidence of blatant vandalism in their edits). Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This (CW mass shooter) looks plenty blatant to me, and paired with this I think the ban was the right move. Found both in this talk page section. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, fair enough... not exactly the vandalism I was referring to, but that commentary certainly seems banworthy. Richard3120 (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the tables, I believe there is a consensus that there should be a maximum of 10 rows in accordance with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Heartfox (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in regards to the edit mentioned above, is it appropriate to keep it in the article or to remove it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with year-end ratings, but I feel "so far this year" or "of the first six months of 2024" lists are a bit pointless. I note that Ariaslaga has been indeffed since this thread started. Richard3120 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, using "pointless" as a rationale to remove perspectives from (specifically) reputable, reliable authors of a subject (as determined by this, obviously) is not valid. Everything on this encyclopedia is pointless. Just because you find something "pointless", does not ban it from inclusion here. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty certain Richard's point is that a "best of" list that doesn't even take an entire year into effect, may not show much importance. That's not an uncommon sentiment. I add them occasionally on more obscure song articles that don't have a ton in the way of awards or reception, but it's not really much of an achievement for some superstar to show up "Billboard's Top 50 Hard Rock Albums of 2024 so far (published in April 2024.)" I mean, how many notable rock albums even came out over the course of 4 months? Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Users are to have whatever viewpoints they have on how sources give their perspectives on music, and that's fine. But no sourcing policy is based on whether users like it or not. I do not even care about any of the albums that have been discussed in relation to this topic. If users start removing critics' rankings over not personally finding any of them "important", that's pushing a point of view, and that is not the goal of an encyclopedia. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, incorrect. We are not robots working off of a computer program. We are humans capable of editorial discretion. These sorts of decisions are made all the time. Just because an RS published content does not make it compulsory for inclusion. RS coverage is the bare minimum for inclusion, not a requirement. Please don't start this up again, your stance on this was thoroughly rejected last time. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serge, Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, textbook magazine or newspaper, and neither is this Simple English Wikipedia. This is regular English Wikipedia which expects more sophistication from its readers and is about anything. Whether the human species are able to have editorial discretion in the manner you are talking is irrelative to how much Wikipedia permits with its content.
Also, when it comes to that "rejection", you are talking about an AFD that took place six months that a small fraction of the users on this website participated in. We go off of current consensus agreed by all users, not what a random selection of users said in a specific topic page months ago. I had a way more hostile tone of voice and attitude than how I am commenting in this section currently that I am not proud of, which I imagine is the real reason other users were not willing to listen, and I have the right to give another go proper in case anyone has changed their minds. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, has this WikiProject actually made these decisions besides the YE limit? If so, that is a big problem. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wasting my time on this again. This is misguided advice no one follows, placed in the middle of a week old unrelated discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to start another section on this page against the 10-row limit, but this is a fact: WP:INDISCRIMINATE absolutely does not apply to rankings of what the best of thousands of records in specific time periods were from journalists writing for publications of strong editorial standards, as the examples provided are obviously WP:Primary sources, such as opinion polls, user ratings on sites like AOTY or IMDb, or crime numbers published by police departments. Best-of lists from sources like NME and Under the Radar are not primary. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've been through this before. It's not compulsory to include every single award/review an RS publishes. But yes, you should probably start a new discussion. Have you read this one all the way through? It already wrapped up days ago when the troublesome editor in question was indeffed. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the section is about. It is about an editor who has been indefinitely block for vandalizing a page under the kind of rationale that's currently consensus on WikiProject Albums that I am disputing. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanxAnthro: a question... what's your view on including both half-yearly and end-of-year rankings for an album? Richard3120 (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for the delay in response because edit conflicts on this page prevented my comments from getting published, but it is not an opinion but rather the truth. It meets WP:WEIGHT to factor in all reliable sources. regardless if they are year-end lists or half-of-year-end lists. Therefore, it is the correct thing to do. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This also seems correct to me. In fact, a magazine posting a standard review seems less notable than saying that said album is one of the best of the mid-year. That's a more substantial coverage as far as I'm concerned. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this actually, because it favours albums released in the first half of the year... nobody does "the best albums from July to December", so I do think there is undue weight given to albums released between January and June. Richard3120 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's also less noteworthy to be singled out for said lists as the selection period grows shorter. Just like I rarely give any credence to these "Best songs released on June 28th, 2024" articles some reliable sources write, unless it seems 100% necessary to establish a song was notable. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there was any ranking that was from an unreliable source or not sourced at all, it's objectively "fluff" or unnecessary. If not, than the editor does not have a valid argument. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PopMatters rating scale[edit]

PopMatters returned to a 10-point scale when they migrated their website to WordPress in January 2021. Here are two archives either side of the change (different albums, but the change in scale is clear): Swamp Dogg 2021-01-16, Swamp Dogg 2021-04-23. GanzKnusper (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PopMatters' entry on RSMUSIC already notes this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I added it 20 minutes ago. I put this here because I didn't want to stick these urls in the edit summary. GanzKnusper (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake, didn't think to check. Might've helped if you'd mentioned that in the first place, but thank you regardless. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Latin Beat Magazine defunct?[edit]

The website latinbeatmagazine.com has been usurped. The last archive I could find was from October 2021. GanzKnusper (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence that they are still going either, and the fact the website (and its alternative lbmo.com) are dead is not a good sign. They have a Twitter/X account, but I'm not on X so I can't check when their last post was or if they say anything about closing down... the Facebook page hasn't been updated since 2015. Richard3120 (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I didn't look on social media. As far as I can tell the most recent post on their Twitter/X account is from 13 November 2015, same as Facebook. GanzKnusper (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll add this info to RSMUSIC. GanzKnusper (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammys list on List of awards and nominations received by Red Hot Chili Peppers is wrong[edit]

According to the official Grammys page, the list on this Wikipedia page is very wrong. I'd fix it myself but tangling with tables is one of my least favorite Wikipedia tasks. Would anyone care to take a look? Popcornfud (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a lot of these were added last year by the editor JasonH1978. Richard3120 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, it looks like it was an IP last month - my apologies to Jason for the false accusation. So a simple revert to the version before the IP's edits should do it. Richard3120 (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to @Zmbro for reverting that. But I don't think it's the whole story. The page now says they won 6 Grammys, but they've only won 3. Popcornfud (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some further work and it's slightly less wrong than it was but still wrong. The table is giving me a headache and I'm out of time. If anyone else wants to fix this that would make my day. Popcornfud (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Popcornfud: I *think* it's all fixed now... apart from the edit mentioned above, this edit seems to have been the main culprit. However, a lot of these still need sourcing to verify them... and the number of wins/nominations in the infobox and in the lead need updating. Richard3120 (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120 Thanks! But the Grammys table still isn't right. They only won three awards but the table says they won five. Like I said, I've tried to fix this but the table formatting makes my eyes spin. Popcornfud (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Popcornfud and Richard3120:  Done It is now actually accurate without whatever weird noise someone introduced and has proper semantics per MOS:DTAB and MOS:TABLECAPTION. Thanks for helping. Teamwork makes the dream work. <3 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! What a relief. Popcornfud (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doh, sorry Popcornfud, the Grammy Awards were the ones I DIDN'T check because I stupidly assumed that they were the ones that you had already managed to fix – thank you Koavf. I've updated the infobox, but I'm not sure if the total awards/nominations here should only total the ones mentioned in the infobox, or all of them. And it's still not completely fixed, because although Carlobunnie attempted to move everything into a single table, she noted that she was leaving out the Hungarian Music Awards because of possible duplication, but I think she has accidentally moved out some of the MTV Europe Awards and and Žebřík Music Awards as well in the process. Richard3120 (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120 the ZMAs were left out because I fell asleep and was unable to complete the table before that (my last edit was made after 4am so I was too tired). I didn't remove any of the MTV EMAs entries. The big table contains exactly what was listed in the original standalone table. Going to finish the merge now. The only thing that'll still be separate is the HMAs table, because I genuinely don't know what to do about it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Afropop Worldwide website a reliable source for album reviews?[edit]

Many of the reviews on the website are credited to Banning Eyre, a published musicologist. He's also on the team page of their website. He owns a record label, but as far as I can tell it is very minor and none of his reviews are for its releases. Besides Eyre, the most regular reviewer is Mukwae Wabei Siyolwe, who doesn't seem to have written for other notable music publications.

I think it would be valuable to include Afropop Worldwide in the list of reliable sources at WP:RSMUSIC, but specifying that only Eyre's reviews are to be used. I'll wait for input from other editors here before making any change. GanzKnusper (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eyre is a great writer and he may be a subject matter expert. I know I've cited his book with Barlow as well as his other ones, and I think he contributes to NPR. The actual site could give a little more info on their editorial policies, etc., though. Caro7200 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, in fact Afropop Worldwide seems to be affiliated with NPR: https://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444269/pri-afropop-worldwide GanzKnusper (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To conclude: I won't add Afropop Worldwide to the reliable sources list, because they don't have a clear editorial policy. But Banning Eyre's reviews and coverage are OK to use, because of his subject matter expertise, à la David Katz. GanzKnusper (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Music Recording Certifications before 1975[edit]

According to the Music Canada website...

Music Canada’s Gold/Platinum Certification Program was launched in 1975 to celebrate milestone sales of music in Canada.

Only thing is, that is total bs.

Just a very small selection.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] etc. etc.

Conclusion... At least as early as 1968'(and possible years earlier too) a Single that sold 100,000 copies in Canada was Gold. And Album that sold 50,000 copies in Canada was Gold. From at least as early as 1973(and possibly earlier) and Album that sold 100,000 copies in Canada was Platinum. Music Canada does not recognise this at all. But then Music Canada doesn't even recognise Music Canada's own 1975/1976 certifications! [ http://www.americanradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Business/Music/Archive-Cash-Box-IDX/70s/1976/Cash-Box-1976-10-09-OCR-Page-0015.pdf#search=%22iron%20butterfly%20j%20geils%20band%20platinum%22]

Wiki should include ALL these **1968**(possible earlier) through 1975 Canadian Certifications. Sadly, there is no central database. It would require going issue-by-issue through old copies of eg. Billboard, Cash Box etc. But it is preposterous to not recognise that eg. Jimi Hendrix, Cat Stevens etc. releases never received Canadian Gold Certifications...when they did! 197.87.135.139 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem explaining this as long as we've got the reliable sources and proper context in the prose written for it. It could be a pretty tall order to find someone to manually dig through magazines for the actual certifications though. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't BS that Music Canada's forerunner, the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), launched the official certification program in 1975. The question is, who was giving out these gold discs before then? I'm not against adding these certifications if we can establish that they were given by an official source. Richard3120 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The YE Rankings Consensus[edit]

I am starting a discourse on the current consensus set by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 64#Overly long ranking lists. The reasons for why I am doing this are extensive and would require reacting to every comment made by several participating editors in that discourse, but just so you all have a basic idea...

  • its basis in any guidelines or policy is lackluster, with the only cited page being an incorrect usage of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE,
  • it calls the cited example abstract names that are confusing to apply to what are simple tables with text and a gray background
  • it falsely equates ratings in reviews (which could range from extremely favorable, to lukewarm, to mixed, to unfavorable and should not have a limit for its template on a note for possibly another discourse) to statements of what was the top 100, 50 and 10 of a set of hundreds of thousands of albums (pretty much the top 1%), indicating poor judgement
  • its claims about the quality and editorial standards of the year-end lists in question is unsubstantiated and extremely speculative, and would be far from enough in a discussion about the reliability of a source
  • it attempts to push a point of view over what perspectives of professional music journalists are "noteworthy" and what are not
  • it makes the false statement that sources need to be covered in other sources to be worthy of inclusion, which is ridiculous anyway and would cause the article count of this site to be 0 if applied universally
  • And finally and most importantly, it opens the door to giving WP:UNDUE weight to only 10 publications in cases where there are several more claiming the album to be a numberth-best User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed to loosening it up - we're an encyclopedia, not a reviews or awards aggregator compelled to document every approved website. INDISCRIMINATE was created for this sort of mindset. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would really help if you did not make loaded statements. Nobody thought this website was an aggregator before we had this limit, and it objectively was not. This is still going to be an encyclopedia regardless if this limit is here or not. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 10 is far too few and as you pointed out, will require some totally arbitrary decision criteria where editors all in some otherwise reliable sources and omit others. If an outlet is on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, it's valid to include it in these kinds of listings. This could visually or page-layoutwise only be a problem after a couple dozen and 99.9% of albums would never be on that many lists anyway. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Listing every best-of ranking is not a summary. A summary is not arbitrary. Limit of 10 aligns with longstanding practice at the album reviews template. Having no limit on the template is even more comical. Heartfox (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not talking about {{music ratings}}. You seem confused. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's referred to in the opening statement. Heartfox (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a side comment about the ratings template because the consensus compared year-end lists to ratings. That's what Heartfox is referring. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: @Sergecross73: This is exactly the misinterpretation of the WP:NOT page that I briefly referred to in my first bullet point. Yes, there is a lot of details we do not put in for a variety of reasons. we do not summarize every single level and button command in a video game. We do not cover every cheat code or glitch. We do not bring up every small thing that happens in a film, book or TV episode when summarizing the plot. We do not have every definition in the dictionary on here. And we do not present every statistic and number that has ever been tracked by government and website logs. I have much time behind me editing this site and am very aware of that.
Here's the real question: How does this violate WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE? The most appropriate bullet point to this discourse is "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", but ignoring the obvious that this is specifically for WP:Primary source statistics (and these are viewpoints from independent sources we are talking about here), this does not prohibit having the tables or coming up with a universally-applied bar of a number of rows. It does acknowledge that these tables can be sometimes "so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article" but recommends "to split into a separate article" and have a brief description of it in the main article. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a long hard read revisiting this discussion again. The community is largely and strongly against your approach. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serge, can you please engage with the comment I just made instead of repeatedly linking me to a random AFD that took place six months ago and contains all of the same arguments as in the consensus I am disputing here? A small portion of users in a AFD from a specific seven-day time period is not "the community". User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10+ AFD participants rejected your notion. Zero supported it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10 out of 10,000 active contributors. Literally six months ago. 3 participants did not give any rationale. 3 I had heavy back-and-forths with, the rest I could not respond to because I was blocked for an unrelated incident. All gave rationales that were invalid. You are not arguing anything. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 00:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Heartfox, the Summary style applies to how prose is written, not lists and tables. When they state you can't present every detail, they mean that you have to concisely describe all of the available literature (sentences on frequently-held viewpoints, for example), meaning you cannot just individually describe every individual viewpoint, that you cannot WP:QUOTEFARM reviews. We still have summary-style prose alongside long lists of numbers, films actors have starred in, albums and singles singers have released, polls and rankings for the popularity of political figures etc., and no such advocacy for the removal of that is taking place here. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No such advocacy for the summary-style" is what I meant to write there, for clarification User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed: 10 is plenty, and there's a history of consensus beyond that as a hard limit on multiple areas of album articles. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input, but I am expecting more from opposing commenters. Do you have something better than "It's just consensus" and other aspects of articles have this? Consensus can change and be contestable. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, sure, but the reasons we developed that consensus in the first place are still valid. Have you looked back at the old versions of some of those articles with dozens of lists? It was absurd. I think having a hard limit is entirely self-explanatory, and I stand by it. What more is there to be said than that? Serge put it as well as it could be put already anyway. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole reason I am starting this section is because none of their reasons were "valid" by any stretch of the imagination, and you are telling me to just accept what are you saying on blind faith. What's "Self-explanatory"? "Absurd" based on what? The lists are massive, but that is simply because lots of reputable publications considered the LPs one of the best of their respective years, so thus the size of the table reflect that. All of the publications meet WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources. And no, there is no evidence any of the listed publications or "self sourced" or created under a low-quality "clickbait" method as JG66 kneejerkedly presumed.
There is no pillar on this website to write in such a manner that appeals to the masses' instant gratification, ignoring the fact that no one is putting a gun to anyone's head to read the entire articles, and can organize the table however they like and use the "Find in Page" feature to look for the year-end ranking, or can just read the in-prose summary of the year-end lists without having to read the table. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Release date inconsistency[edit]

I'll use Back in Business (EPMD album) as an example, but I'd like to get a generalized advice I could apply elsewhere later. A few years ago I changed unsourced release date of September 23 to sourced September 16. Now an editor comes in and changes it back to September 23. I reverted them, but they restored it, claiming that the official artist page on Instagram says it's September 23. I checked and it indeed does say so. However, the first release date source currently in the article is a magazine article from 2009 with compiled data received directly from the label, including release dates. The other sources are a contemporary newspaper and an article from 2008. The dates are important here because in 2012 an IP editor mass changed release dates in numerous articles, including this one. I can't say whether or not it's a case of citogenesis, but now we have several pre-2012 sources saying September 16 (here are a few more contemporary ones [8] [9]; I can't seem to find contemporary sources for September 23 but some newspapers ads do mention that date) and modern day official Instagram of the duo, with whoever running it claiming it's September 23. Who should get the priority here? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 04:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would favour the contemporary, not-self-published source. But could there be something else going on, like release dates in different countries? I'd guess it's not a coincidence that the suggested dates are exactly 1 week apart. In the XXL article you linked, the release date of Ja Rule's Rule 3:36 is also one week out from what the Wiki article (sourced to AllMusic) claims. And AllMusic has totally different months for Whatcha Gonna Do? and He Got Game. GanzKnusper (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To put things honestly, I like to remind you that the Sep 23 date was from the official social media page for the group, possibly verified as an official page by independent sources, not just any self-published source like you are framing it. To get back to the main focus of the section, I have encountered these situations so much and it drives me crazy in 1980s and 1970s albums, when the only sources for release dates were magazine and newspaper listings and PR. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always go with the contemporary source. Modern–day sources often don't have the actual data to hand, and in fact a lot of them get their information from Wikipedia, which creates a WP:CIRCULAR sourcing argument. The people running websites and social media will upload whatever information they are told to upload, they are not fact-checking the dates. More than once I've found a band's official website give completely the wrong release date, so I never consider an official website or social media as reliable. Richard3120 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GanzKnusper: regarding the fact that the dates are one week apart; both dates are Tuesdays, pre-2015 release day in the US. If it was a release date from a different country, it wouldn't necessarily be on Tuesday. I've actually encountered an even crazier case, where I found sources for 3 different Tuesdays. As for these other examples, they all have something in common: if you check revisions from around 2010, they listed different release dates. AllMusic provides the release date in its sidebar, which is to be avoided per WP:A/S. Sourcing release dates for older albums is the worst, especially after all these unsourced changes stayed up for a decade. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 15:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed – hstorically, release dates were always on Tuesdays in the US, but if the release date was from Europe, it would have been on a Monday... UK release dates for both singles and albums were on Mondays from around 1984–85 until Global Release Day in 2015 changed it to Fridays all around the world. Richard3120 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More than once I've found a band's official website give completely the wrong release date, so I never consider an official website or social media as reliable. That makes me think of how Bowie's website unearthed "new evidence" from RCA Records that stated The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars came out on June 16, 1972 and not June 6 (as was widely reported for decades before). (June 16 is currently in the infobox and body). To me crap like that makes no sense and only adds more confusion. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Record labels are also hopeless at knowing the release dates of their own records from before the internet era. One of the worst examples is Island Records telling everyone for decades that Nick Drake's Bryter Layter came out on 1 November 1970, to the point that two biographies and Island's own deluxe reissue of the album quote this date. We now know that Island got not only the day wrong, not just the month wrong, but even the year wrong... it was 5 March 1971. Richard3120 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me started on streaming services on releases prior to the streaming era either. Countless times they can't even get the years right. It kills me when I'm trying to organize/clean up an obscure band's discography... Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly unreliable review[edit]

At In_Sexyy_We_Trust#Critical_reception, the only review is from a source not listed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. If others agree that this is unreliable and should not be included, please delete it. If anyone wants to make the case that it should be added to our list of reliable sources, please chime in. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ii agree, this doesn't look like a strong source and the quote given from the source isn't really illuminating in any case. Popcornfud (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stylization concern[edit]

Just made a bold edit to The Story of I regarding its use of a stylized title, and I feel confident in that move. However, I'm less sure about the same use of the symbol, a non-free image, in the article's track listing. Should the symbol be replaced there as well, and the image file deleted as WP:F5? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit has been undone by Martin IIIa, so consider the discussion expanded to include that as well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QuietHere As far as the lead goes, I don't know of any precedent of starting off an article with an image like that. Not to mention the symbol by itself, prior to explanation, would be perplexing to most readers. Definitely don't prefer Martin's version in that respect. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compilation vs. greatest hits[edit]

When setting the "type" parameter in the infobox of an album article, what's the difference between a compilation album and a greatest hits album? I think some albums are pretty clearly greatest hits albums -- for example, Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975) -- while others are obviously compilations -- for example, An Anthology. But for other albums, the distinction is less clear. For example, in this recent edit, QuasyBoy changed the type for The Best of the Grateful Dead Live from compilation to greatest hits. But for that album, I would more or less seriously say, what hits? Most of those songs didn't chart -- either the live versions compiled on the album, or the original studio versions of the songs. So to me it's more of a compilation. What do other editors think? — Mudwater (Talk) 01:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, it's easier to say which compilation albums are not greatest hits albums, e.g.:
  • compilations of multiple artists
  • albums compiled according to a clearly different criteria, e.g. Past Masters collects all non-album releases, Another Self Portrait is demos etc. from the Self Portrait and New Morning sessions, I Thank God is songs by Sam Cooke of a particular genre, Everything So Far is in the name.
So maybe "greatest hits" albums are just the subset of "compilation albums" that have no other reason for existing. It seems to me that the name "greatest hits" is a marketing trick (I'm sure we've all seen albums claiming to be greatest hits that have ridiculous omissions). If the Grateful Dead want to claim that this is the best of their live output, I won't argue. GanzKnusper (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's about it. Compilation albums are a grouping of songs together usually recorded for other releases first (other albums, EPs, stand-alone singles, b-sides, etc) while greatest hits albums are usually compilation albums that focus more of a group's most popular songs. (Though not exclusively, as they often have new/rare songs mixed in, and bands with a smaller collection of hits often have them "padded" with songs that weren't all that big.)
Like usual on Wikipedia, when in doubt, just go by whatever third party reliable sources label an album as. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Debut"[edit]

I'd like clarification on the usage of this term. An artist/group releases an EP (on a label, not a demo), and nothing notable prior to that; it's their recording debut. Later, they release a studio album; this is surely no longer their debut album, but their first album, since they already had a debut release prior. Am I getting my usage mixed up? If they made their debut with an EP, surely a subsequent album cannot also be a debut. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still considered their debut album! You can have a debut EP, a debut mixtape, a debut album, and major-label debut all as different releases. Eugenia ioessa (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Although if, for example, the debut EP came after three studio albums, I'd probably refer to it as their "first EP" instead, to avoid confusion. Richard3120 (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. And anecdotally, it seems to be how we generally handle it these days. Sergecross73 msg me 21:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Whitney Houston Live: Her Greatest Performances#Requested move 23 June 2024[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Whitney Houston Live: Her Greatest Performances#Requested move 23 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability[edit]

Is TheStreet a reliable source for music related matters, such as album sales? Thanks

Koppite1 (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say its come up in the past. They're not a sales-tracking company, so I wouldn't think they'd have access to any sales that would haven't come from any of the usual places we get sales figures from. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paper magazine[edit]

Hello: I'm currently reviewing Virtual Self (EP) at FAC and came across an article by Paper. I'm not sure if it's reliable or not and would really like some insight on this source. — lunaeclipse (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, I don't see why it wouldn't be. Got a full editorial team listed here and I see plenty of writers with bylines at other reliable sources on Muck Rack, e.g. their music editor has written for NME, Uproxx, and Paste, and these two have both written for The New York Times. I would even recommend they be added to RSMUSIC, unless there's anything significant I've missed. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I've never seen any problem with this publication and there's plenty of genuine journalistic experience there. Richard3120 (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Beyond agreeing with everyone above, most publications that started as print media publications in the 1980/90/2000s meet our requirements anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:In These Times (publication)#Requested move 4 July 2024[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:In These Times (publication)#Requested move 4 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving[edit]

After years of working on album articles, I have decided it is not worth my time working with this group of people. I am still going to be editing elsewhere on this site, but if the group of music article editors consists of people who think that they can chop off parts of trees just because it offends their instant gratification and try to get users who call that out in trouble off of the flimsiest and fabricated of evidence, they are a lost cause and cannot be reasoned with. I am not naming names for the same reason teachers do not reveal to a classroom who got an F on the most recent test, but if the demise of music articles on this website keeps going, just know that all I did here was warn about it. So until circumstances here change, congratulations, you lost a participant! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Christgau, everyone's fav[edit]

Hello, see this more and more, although still in a minority of articles--Robert Christgau, listed alphabetically under R in the ratings template rather than C. This has always seemed super weird to me, as the linked term is to the person who has worked as a critic and journalist for 50+ years, not the web site that collects most of his previously published writing. I know this has always been a citing nightmare: he's on his 8th or 9th outlet, so there are now that many ways to cite him, starting with The Village Voice, his books, his site, a generic "Christgau Consumer Guide"--which sometimes means his column, book, or site--and his 4 or 5 post-VV firing outlets. On top of that, a substantial number of editors link to the site artist pages even when citing VV or his book, so it's often technically an incorrect citation right off the bat (he occasionally made changes to reviews/grades for his books and site). Most importantly, the linked term always refers to him, the person, not his site. I've read some album articles where an editor obviously thinks that, in the prose portion, "Robert Christgau" is just another music web site. I've considered for years boldly changing the sources page and the template example, but thought I'd post here first (it always seemed that one editor just stuck him under R, and everyone forgot about it). At heart, I think this is genuinely misleading and confusing to both editors and readers, and bad information, where one term means two things--not helped by the fact that only a few "named" critics are used in the template; strangely, Martin C. Strong as a name is almost always under S. I don't care at all if an editor chooses to cite VV or a book (again, so long as those works are actually cited, rather than his site), I'm just concerned about his name also equating to his site and the misinformation that results. I'm not exactly sure of WP's alphabetically sorting guidance--I remember a page that uses "George Washington" as an example, with the guidance that he's sorted under W, but maybe that is something old. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I've been replacing "Robert Christgau" with "The Village Voice" in the template (in articles about 1990s albums), since that's where he originally published his reviews. Like you say, there's usually a link to an artist page on his personal website. I use a quote from it to search his site to find the full Consumer Guide, and then use it to find the issue on ProQuest, to fill a citation template ({{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}}, no preference really) with date, issue number and pages. I keep a link to his website, since the reviews there were uploaded either by him or someone closely related to him ("as we can put up"; and it's several times easier to cite his website than the book on the Internet Archive, which may also soon disappear following the lawsuit), though I tend to replace artist page with a Consumer Guide page (example). However, these don't have stars on honorable mentions (and neither do ProQuest scans, so I guess he added stars later, in the book), in which case I have to link the artist page that includes stars. Sometimes I see "Christgau's Consumer Guide" instead, which I keep, even though I think it's not entirely correct since he reprinted the VV reviews in the book. For post-VV, I would use the name of whatever outlet he was reviewing for, with his name in the citation template. I would consider keeping his name in the scores template for his latest reviews, which he publishes independently. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 14:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums&oldid=1232969066"