Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35

Stub album article "template"

Partially a response to the above, but for any newcomer to the Album Project: I created a "template" to create a bare-minimum stub album article in my userspace (here). Basically attempting to assist people to create a "nice" album article first time. :) I have no idea whether it will be helpful to new or experienced alike (it is for me to be honest!), but it's there if you need it. I'd appreciate any feed back either here or at my talkpage and please do add anything to it which you feel has been ommitted – especially in the notes section at the bottom (maybe it is still a bit confusing for newcomers). – B.hoteptalk• 08:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like it. It's definitely something to show to a new editor who has created a sub-stub album article. You know the kind, with nothing but a track list? Should we link to it? -Freekee (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I don't mind. If it's going to be of use, it should come out of my userspace really. So, if we get enough interest, that's what we'll do, eh? – B.hoteptalk• 16:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think is a great idea, if there were a way to place it into the talk page of stubs, it would greatly help the project. Zidane tribal (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah i like it too, would do the job fine and make it much easier to clean up after a new user has used it as well. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a note, the reviews link needs to be formatted as a reference and not an open url. Other than that, it is a great template for beginning articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Bovineboy2008 about formatting the reviews J04n(talk page) 05:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could also probably add into the lead "released through RECORD LABEL in YEAR." Minor expansion, easy information to obtain and include. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consider adding to the 'notes': For further assistance see WP:ALBUM. Terrific reference, wish I had it when I did my first article. The problem is how can a new editor be expected to find it? J04n(talk page) 05:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the feedback guys. Re: review as reference – not a problem, makes good sense, will see to that soon. Re: the record label in the lead – this is something which I always did when I created an album article, so I don't know why I didn't do that! Re: new users finding it – well, this is the problem. Most users (like the one in the thread above, I suspect) aren't even aware of WP:ALBUMS until someone put the project banner on the article they created. By which time, they may have created more than a few articles! I'm sure I used to have a customised welcome template somewhere... let me see if I can dig it out. My other thoughts on this – does anyone think I should put a detailed 1-2-3 guide in the notes section to guide them through every field of the infobox (with reference to the different sections of WP:ALBUM; e.g. correct usage of "Type") or would that be too much to expect people to read and follow? Also, should we do a Lite version for experienced users without all the field pointers? Once you've done a few, you know what's expected and it can be a pain to delete unused fields. Does that make sense? Anyway, as I said before – feel free to adjust and add anything you think should be in it. I may move it to Project space today so it doesn't seem like I own it! :) – B.hoteptalk• 08:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a great idea, you have my full support. I took you on the word and did a few changes (this edit) that I wouldn't believe need discussion as the format comes directly out of our guidelines. – IbLeo (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK! WP:ALBUM welcome template

I forgot that we created a WP:ALBUM welcome template some time ago, I forgot why I deleted it from my userspace: because it got moved here – and I forgot that it was already mentioned on the project page here! Anyway, now you are aware of it (again?)– shall we use it to help people out? Embrace them to Wikipedia's general bosom, and that of WP:ALBUM, where they can find the handy album article creation template! – B.hoteptalk• 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bingo! Get them while they're fresh! – B.hoteptalk• 21:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wonderful, i`ll give to any newbie i see. Zidane tribal (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Track listing song names

Should the track listing show the consensus official name for a song, or the name of the song as it appears on the album/CD? — John Cardinal (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the difference? The song title as it appears on the CD is the official name. = ∫tc 5th Eye 14:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not always. When there are multiple releases there may be slight variations in the names. For example, The Beatles covered a song "Money (That's What I Want)" originally released with that name, but their album (including subsequent releases on CD) has the name as "Money". — John Cardinal (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go with the track names listed on the official release; CD, mp3, etc. Then obviously link to the article, you've got it right now, IMO. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 15:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Is this worth clarifying on the project page? — John Cardinal (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rap stub template

Hi people.

We are well in the stub categories department, but i think we lack the Rap one, not that like the genre i think it should be placed in the same category as Hip-hop, but could someone create the template for Rap music, please. Zidane tribal (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Release Dates

I consider myself a world class expert on Duke Ellington. I also have a really good knowldege of jazz. I am new to Wikipedia.

One of the things that is striking to me is that a lot of people are hung up about release dates. I can only speak for jazz. In the jazz community, we have discographies from tiny to hudge in size. All of them are based on recording date. Sometimes you might hear about release dates, but it is rare. If you don't have the recording dates listed, you are going against every standard reference work in jazz.

My near term goal is to list all of Duke Ellington's albums (not collections) from major to semi-major labels. --Ellingtonrecords (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a general rule, discographies are organized in order of release date. {{Infobox album}} includes fields for both recording and release dates, so no problem there. In a discography section or article, standard practice is to list albums in order of release. This is true of every genre I've ever had experience with. I'm unaware of any special exception for jazz, but admittedly I have next to zero experience with that genre. I recommend listing the items in order of release, but if the recording dates are hugely disparate to the release dates (ie. the albums were released in a different order than they were recorded), then note this next to the release (such as in a "Recording date" column in a table format). Wikiproject Discographies may be able to offer more input on this. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi IllaZilla,
It is not unheard of for Duke Ellington recordings to be officially issued 40 years or more after they were made. Things issued 50 years ago, but were not known also turn up. I myself co-discovered an Ellington recording 30 years after it was issued. It was not to the general public however. Right now the best general jazz discography is by Tom Lord. I don't own it but I have seen it many times. Everything is organized by artist and recording date. There is no mention of release dates.
One last thing, you can not do a discography of Duke Ellington justice here. I have books bigger than bibles devoted to listing his recordings. Admittedly, particularly after 1950, most are club and concert recordings that were never issued and only a few people have heard. Even if you exclude those, you are still "trying to kill and elephant with a bb gun" because of the enormity of the task.
I just went to the discography page. Nothing but rock and the like. --Ellingtonrecords (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't Duke Ellington discography already list his records by recording date? Mudwater (Talk) 01:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Mudwater
Yes it does. However I think it does not do the man justice. If you want to see the best online discography, go here: [1] Then click "Sessions." It is still missing things.
When I talk talk about release dates, I am talking about an attitude I perceive on Wikipedia where more than a few people are hung up about this issue. I do not want to go against my standard reference works because if a reader tries to use them someday, then they can find things. The release date maybe more easily obtainable in rock and pop or it maybe a bigger concern or more important in that community. --Ellingtonrecords (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With all the classic-era jazz books I have worked on (covering up to 1980s), except for very simple entry-level lists the authors have always organised the discographies chronologically by recording session, asigning each take a catalog number, since the improvised nature of the music means that originally unissued takes may ultimately see a release on a later album. Or bits of several takes may get combined to form the final version (Thelonious Monk's Brilliant Corners being an infamous example).
With rock/pop albums the sheer amount of overdubbing and post-production work can make it impossible to pinpoint the moment of creation to a precise date in many (most?) cases, hence the convenience of relying on an official release date to sort works in a chronolgical order. However it always causes problems where something gets released inconsistently in different territories, or where old albums get re-packaged and re-issued with additional material. Also bear in mind that many of the people compiling on-line discographies, especially in wikipedia, are simply consumer-collectors who have no access to official information on recording dates. Ricadus (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well alright, it sounds (and looks) pretty clear that the standard for jazz is to list by recording date. That's fine. Obviously there's no one-size-fits-all for these sorts of things. For the majority of genres (I work primarily in rock and pop) release date is the more significant because of the commercial nature of the release (release date will coincide more closely with chart status, released singles, marketing campaign, certifications, etc.). Ricadus, we generally solve the issue of reissued material by going with the earliest release date and mentioning reissues later. Anyway, clearly there is a different standard for jazz and that can be worked around. Not every article has to look the same. Ellingtonrecords, if you find a given article lacking, and you'd like to see it improved, then by all means go for it. It certainly sounds like you've got source material to work with. Remember Wikipedia is built entirely by volunteers, so we can use all the help we can get. You may find interest (and further input) at WikiProject Jazz. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the good word IllaZilla. I patrol Duke Ellington related pages and will improve them to start. My near term goal is to create album pages for original material Duke albums. The main reason I am doing this is to build an online legacy on a very popular site for Duke. Now if only other experts on other jazz artists would step forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellingtonrecords (talkcontribs) 17:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like Georgiy Starostin to be a Professional Reviewer

Hey. I've seen a couple of album ratings by Georgiy Starostin appearing on Wikipedia (mostly Beatles albums), and I think it would be nice if his site was added to the Review sites list. Queenieacoustic (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you provide a link to his reviews so a judgment can be made? --JD554 (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Links to website has been removed and reviewer is an nn. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His Wiki article, Georgiy Starostin, seems to indicate that he is mainly notable for his work in linguistics, etc. And the reviews were a personal blog or website on the side. He doesn't appear to have been published, other than his self-published website. Seems like a similar situation to Piero Scaruffi, where there's practically no way we can justify his reviews being included in articles about The Beatles (there's much better sources). k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely looks like a self-published amateur reviewer. I can't find any reliable sources which refer to his work as an album reviewer. --JD554 (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EP Category rename

Have you seen the request to rename Category:EPs and all its sub-categories ?

I suggest you vote a.s.a.p. GrahamHardy (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Track listing / to produce or not to produce

Hello i have a query regarding track listings. My main concern is should you include the producers for a song? i notice that WP:Albums does not mention anything about producers but it appears to have become a convention to include everyone who has contributed to a song. In some instances for example Battlefield (album) it is unclear who produced song number 5. but in other instances I Look to You for example there is a source which explicitly states "x & y" produced song 1, "a & b" produced song 2. One experienced editor said to me that featured articles don't include the producers of a song. help please. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]

There are multiple options for how to deal with this, and no one-size-fits-all solution. Most albums have only 1 or a few producers, so it's sufficient just to list them in a "personnel" section. However with some genres, like hip hop, there may be a different notable producer for each track. In that situation I recommend using {{tracklist}} and employing the "extra_column" field for producers. American Gangster (album)#Track listing provides an example of what this looks like. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviews sites section: Move to sub-page?

How about moving the Reviews sites section into a separate subpage and transclude it into the main project page? It would display just like today, but allow us to protect only that subpage without "freezing" the remaining of the project page. I am asking this question because it seems like the "metal-observer edit war" could be breaking out again. – IbLeo (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the page not be semi-protected anyway? What business do IPs have editing it? Especially ones who have not contributed to discussions here prior to making unsolicited changes - if they did involve in discussions then I'm sure we would encourage them to make an account, and there'd be no problem. Anyway, I've been trying to figure out some stuff to do with reviews, parts of the guidelines there need rewriting, it's too broad and basically needs to indicate that a review needs to have importance and relevancy to actual critique - not just some music writer for a teenage girl's gossip magazine with an editor, etc. Perhaps a subage would be appropriate. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There aren't many other project "main" pages which are protected, so I don't think we should. IbLeo's idea of transclusion would be a work-around for it. And I agree with you, k.i.a.c., about it probably needing a rewrite. By the way, so far, since the previous month-long protection wore off, there has only been one insertion against consensus (the IP) and one reversion (mine) – Tarc mistakenly thought that I was inserting MO as a valid review source and self-reverted. So perhaps it's not a big problem again... yet. – B.hoteptalk• 18:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the transclusion is a fine idea. However, I'm not sure that the guideline need re-writing. I agree that we shouldn't be linking to fan reviews or blogs but we have to be careful that we aren't being too elitist either. To use the example above, who would be better to write a review for the next Hannah Montana album? A 'teenage girl's gossip magazine' or Rolling Stone? J04n (talkcontribs) 18:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with creating a subpage, but not necessarily with transcluding it. I think instead we ought to work on developing our guidelines for reviews/critical reception and creating more of a fleshed-out subpage, with a brief summary here on the main page (a WP:SS-style approach). One of the fundamental questions I think we need to address (that I've been putting off for a while) is do we even need reviews in the infobox? That of course is a different kettle of fish and I don't intend to have that discussion in this thread; I'll probably raise it separately in the coming weeks. But if we're to continue developing and expanding our MoS with respect to reviews, it's probably best split off to a subpage. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also think it would be great if we could somehow improve the guidelines, and/or complete the lists of review sites. It's really hard to convince somebody that his favorite review site shouldn't be listed when there are already so many dubious borderline out there. k.i.a.c. mentioned Strange Glue in a discussion above, or how about this IP who has spend the last two nights adding reviews from Rockfeedback to around 40 articles. Are they within our guidelines? Today I really can't say. – IbLeo (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sometimes, in other areas of Wikipedia, when changes to policy are suggested, they are rebutted because we are reminded that they don't need to be too specific, shouldn't cite every conceivable possibility, and rely ultimately on common sense. When it comes to reviews (and essentially reliable sources), I think we do need a concrete list... or do we need them at all (IllaZilla, I await your subsequent review thread in due course :) ) – B.hoteptalk• 20:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we need to take a page out of Wikipedia:Record charts' book, where providing the correct pathway seems to work. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 20:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your point J04n, which is why I would be emphasising 'relevancy to the topic' as one of the main principles - perhaps a relevant teen gossip mag would be perfectly fine when dealing with Hannah Montanna, at least in part (to even up undue weight, or to provide that consistent balance we require) - but you would definitely not use the same source for a say, Green Day album. Now this is just common sense, but some editors seems to struggle with common sense - 'No, my review is better written than Rolling Stone's review, yada yada...' and so forth. This might be worth mentioning also, I've been adding to a little list of possibly dubious review sites that have Wikipages in a subpage of mine. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 20:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have the impression that have I opened up another Pandora's box here. I swear I didn't do it on purpose ;-). A myriad of questions are being asked above regarding professional reviews: (a) should we improve the guidelines? (b) should we add more entries to the list? (c) should we semi-protect the page? (d) Do we need professional reviews at all? Going back to my original proposal, I see much support and no serious protests against it. Consequently I have moved the "Review sites" into a subpage as-is (i.e. without any changes to the content) and transcluded it into the main project page. For the project page reader there is no change, it looks exactly like before. However what has been achieved is that the occasional drive-by IP is less prone to finding it and adding his favorite review site. Now, this change does not rule out IllaZilla's proposal at a later stage (as nothing is final here on WP). In fact, I see the different issues listed above —disregarding the last one, of course, but it's out-of-scope of this thread— as independent issues that should be discussed independently. Now, the next issue we could address is, should we go one step further and semi-protect the review sites subpage, like it is currently the case with the sourcing guide over at WP:CHARTS? – IbLeo (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I forgot to mention that I redirected the talk page of the subpage to here in order to avoid having discussions about review sites at several different places. Better keep those centralized. – IbLeo (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the history of that particular section, I don't think semi-protection would prevent POV insertion. There is probably a new account maturing somewhere as we speak to bypass that. So it needs to be full protection with a note to bring any additions up on the talk page (as it should be). – B.hoteptalk• 21:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the move, but I don't think we need to transclude it. I think we should link it from within the infobox documentation, under the description of the "Professional reviews" section. Since the infobox documentation is already transcluded here, the link would appear here as well. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like that suggestion. That would put the review sites subpage directly in the relevant context. Today it is sort of "lost" at the bottom of the project page and easy to oversee. However, if we remove the transclusion—which we should definitely do if we implement this—I think we should decide on the question of protection, as we would lose the advantage of the page being sort of hidden. I am not convinced that we should go for full protection; do we really need to evoke an administrator for each update? – IbLeo (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there's enough of us here to revert when necessary, the only problem is going to be when we revert because it has not been discussed and we get a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT thrown back in our face. A semi-protect should be enough considering we haven't had all that much editing on the page recently. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is an outbreak of the "metal-observer edit war" over at the subpage. Bubba hotep, as you are an admin, if you read this, would you please semi-protect it? – IbLeo (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. I have implemented IllaZilla's idea; now the review sites subpage is no longer transcluded into the project page; instead is wikilinked from the "Professional reviews" section. The subpage has also been semi-protected (thanks Bubba). I suggest we close this thread and address the ideas that some of you put forward above in other discussions. – IbLeo (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving album information to band page

Quick question. As background, the band page The Shells (and everything related to it, including its album page) came under deletion attack (primarily by two editors). The band page has survived as notable (though the nominating deleter is again seeking to have it deleted). The album page (see [2]) has been deleted.

My question is whether it is appropriate to move all or some of the information from the deleted album page (e.g., photo of album cover, track listings, mention of the review (and perhaps even a quote from the review)) to the band page now that the album page has been deleted. A couple of editors had indicated as much, but I wanted to solicit opinions from the experts here before doing so. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Album cover is a definite no, that would no doubt be breaking policies on non-free image use. Track listings are terrible in a band article, so no. Review yes, but instead of going "they reviewed it", you could at least turn it into a sentence or two and describe the reception it received (supporting the opinion of the reviewer with a quote, yep). I don't understand how they could have deleted the album, when it's generally accepted for official releases by notable bands to be kept until the band is deleted. Suppose I would have to read up on the matter. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It hasn't been deleted, it was redirected by User:Psantora (diff), I have no idea why. --JD554 (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because the artist page was deleted, but has been retrieved after an appeal perhaps? In which case the album page should also be retrieved per the appeal. But i would have thought they'd just delete the page if the artist page was deleted, a redirect would be null? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 15:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To echo what was said above, tracklistings do not really belong on the band page, and album covers are almost certainly never appropriate on the band page. Information about the album (recording and reception) are going to be useful on the band page, but, obviously, if a band has released a lot of albums, there's not going to be much room for that stuff. J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to answer the above questions, the artist page The Shells was never deleted. There was an effort to delete the artist page by one proposing editor, an 18-editor discussion that ended up in the article being kept as "no consensus" for deletion, and an appeal by the same proposing editor that met with resistance and was withdrawn. From the above, should I conclude the album page should be restored? And, if so, can someone help me with that? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reverted it to the version prior to the redirect. It appears someone wants to start a discussion on merging it to the artist's article, however. – B.hoteptalk• 14:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • An editor (the same one who sought unsucessfully to delete the band article) is arguing that the album article should not have its own page (at [3]).
Can someone expert in the issues please address them in that discussion? It would be very much appreciated. As this is an editor who is seeking to delete everything I create, and I'm simply not as expert in album notability issues as the others here. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hey, don't try to pin everything on me. I'm not the one who added the {{mergeto}} tag; all I did was start a discussion (so, really, I'm the one who was giving you a forum to express your side of the argument). Starting a discussion is the proper procedure, so I don't see why you're so eager to whine about me for following the procedure. And I don't "seek to delete everything you create", only the trivial articles about this non-notable band; I don't remember having ever dealt with any of your other work. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review site: The A.V. Club

I propose we add The A.V. Club to the list of review sites. It seems genuine to me, 662 articles currently links to it's article, many of them to cite reviews, including album articles like Love and Theft, St. Anger, Under Rug Swept, and Vespertine to name just a few. – IbLeo (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remember, just because Wikipedia links to the site, does not necessarily make it notable. Take Strange Glue (look where it links to) for example, it has one reviewer who is of no significant professional value, but the site has been posted here (probably by them originally) in hundreds of articles, now people consider it a good site to use as a source? Most probably just because they saw it in another article. Look up a couple of sections above this to see ways to prove their reliability. I can't imagine Reuters citing them, The Guardian doing a feature on them, or Metacritic referencing this site in their aggregator. The thing that seems to make the site notable is the fact that it is a subsidiary of The Onion - which is a satirical news service (being Australian, this wreaks bullcrap, because I'm now thinking it has a connection to something similar to The Chaser). The WP page also says it "strives for a humorous, snarky tone"? So basically, you're going to need to gather some references that prove the site's independent value as a professional review site. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure enough, the fact that the site is already linked from WP does not make it notable. I am not American myself either, and I don't have any particular knowledge of this newspaper/website other than what I could read in its WP article. I just thought that since it is already referenced by such well-known albums as those listed in my first edit (supposedly watched by many of our members) would mean that there has already been established a consensus per se that The A.V. Club is okay to use for professional reviews. So I thought, why not add it to our list of good review sites? However, if the project feels that it is not okay to use it, then let's add it to the list of non-professional review sites. I can go anyway, really. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? – IbLeo (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, I have done my research. It looks very plausible.

My main problem was its association with a 'fake' satirical newspaper, but all commentary about the site seems to indicate it is much more serious and a valuable resource for critique on popular culture, including music. Looks like an automatic add to the list to me, check it over and tell us what you think. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good to me. In my own experience it is a serious publication of criticism (with just a bit of sarcasm), not like its parent publication which is pure satire. It's widely referred to as a genuine critical source, so I think we're fine to add it. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to apologize - the last two entries went past my attention until today. k.i.a.c. , many thanx for that impressive piece of research! Regarding the satire issue, the A.V. Club address it themselves in their FAQ section: "—So the stuff you write is all fake, like The Onion's "news," right? —No. Not even a little. The A.V. Club features real interviews, reviews, and other entertainment-related articles. —Huh? So what's it doing in The Onion? —The Onion has had reviews since its earliest days. (...)". With your support I will add it to the professional reviews sub-page. – IbLeo (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. Sleeping in the class again – k.i.a.c. has already added it. Double thanks. – IbLeo (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number 1's (Mariah Carey album) GAR notice

Number 1's (Mariah Carey album) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made a few minor fixes myself, and left 8 relatively easy suggestions as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CD Baby

Looking through various of the 525 references to CD Baby on Wikipedia, it appears commonplace in those references for album articles to mention that the album is being sold through CD Baby (they also often mention other modes of sale/distribution, such as iTunes, Amazon, etc.). Is that appropriate? Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, there is no reason to list specific online retailers. There are dozens of such retailers, any of whom may sell the album. It would be just as pointless to list specific physical stores selling it, as there are hundreds (if not thousands) of such retail chains any of which could carry the album. It's only significant to list specific retailers if that retailer is offering a unique version of the album or if they are the exclusive retailer of the album (such as with Chinese Democracy, exclusively available in the US at Best Buy, or Black Ice, exclusive to Wal-Mart in the US). iTunes is often mentioned because it typically carries extra tracks or content, or has an earlier release date than the physical album. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similar question about I notice that 30 articles use it as a link, but I wonder whether that is OK. Many thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Clearly in violation of copyright (as 99.9% of song lyrics are copyrighted), and no different from the dozens of other lyrics sites out there. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sterling Sound

Also, does anyone have a view as to whether I should take a crack at creating an article for Sterling Sound, the mastering studio? It seems to be already referred to in over 200 articles, but has no article. I imagine I could muster at least a stub, and perhaps a start.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Studios are beyond the scope of this wikiproject. That said, being referred to in a lot of articles doesn't make it notable, it needs to comply with, at least, the general notability guidelines in that it has received in depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. If you can create an article based on that, then why not? --JD554 (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Future class assessment

WikiProject Punk music has an assessment option for Future Class articles. Could this be a valid way of replacing the impending deletion/deprecation of Future templates? Is there any reason why we don't have Future class articles? I think it would be much easier to track Upcoming albums and get them assessed as they are released, rather than prior to release when they are still incomplete/building. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We actually do have support for this. I added it when I revamped the Assessment Department back in May. Articles assessed as Future go in Category:Future-Class Album articles. Currently there are 153 articles in the category. Looks like it may need some cleaning out, as some articles still marked as Future have passed their release date (Artwork and Amanda Leigh, for example, were the first 2 I clicked on and both have been released). --IllaZilla (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, awesome. I only looked at the Quality Scale section, we need to implement it better, never really see it being used. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 10:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just removed 25 out of the first 41 listed. Needs a major cleanup! k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 10:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

→ Okay, finally finished cleaning this up. Let's try keep it neat in the future, make sure if you see a Future class that it's actually a Future album. Otherwise this will just be a burden. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found a review linked to this site and they look legit. See their 'about us' page. Their writers have written for legit magazines, they have no ads, they don't sell albums, and the reviews are well written. I say to add them. They use a 6-point rating scale.J04n(talk page) 11:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we can add something on the word of their about page. I've seen some pretty impressive claims on those pages in the past, and they just have holes all through them.
The only reliable source reference i can find, is the editor, Razik Rauf, wrote a single article for The Guardian. As for the other authors, it's a tad hard to look them up when they decide to put their names in cryptic. Their loss I guess. Will have to oppose until we get some kind of concrete source backing up not just the editors/writers but the actual site. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, I reckon you'd be just about OK to cite reviews from Razik Rauf only, but really, why would you?? There's a wealth of info out there from mags old and new, as well as plenty of reliable independent music websites. It's also not just about reliability, notability has to take precedence as appropriate. RB88 (T) 09:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Putting it out there...

At FACs, the issue of using the most reputable reviewer sources first has come up time and time again. I'm proposing a hierarchical system for the review sites list as follows:

<see next topic>

I think this is a good way to encourage good quality authorship and raise the standards of our pop culture articles, which, let's face it, get more slack than most. I'd love to hear what people think. RB88 (T) 17:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was actually recently thinking about something similar to this. It was more in regards to using newspapers along with proper music mags, and using them both in conjunction with each other, so we get a mix. Much like how we encourage both reviews from the time of the release, and then modern reviews also. I think we really do need a wholesome view though, and the reviews selected should be based on balancing POV issues first, not necessarily size/reputation of the publication. I'm open to this though, it could work. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 02:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue of recentism in reviews was something I dealt with in working on Alien (film)–how best to distinguish critical opinion from the time of a work's release to critics looking at the same work in retrospect years later, and how to balance the weight given to each. For example, the Rolling Stone review of Nevermind is from 1991, shortly after the album's release. But the Allmusic review is obviously from much later, as Allmusic was founded in '91 and the review (which isn't dated) is clearly worded retrospectively. I solved this problem by having separate sections for "Reception" and "Lasting critical praise", the former focusing on reaction at the time of the film's release and the latter on critics reflecting on the film or reviewing DVD releases years later. I think the Nevermind article does a good job of this too, separating "Critical reaction" from "Legacy". I think it's important to have both types of reviews in a well-balanced article, in order to give the topic proper historical context as well as trace its later impact (or lack thereof). Unfortunately, while recent reviews (even of old albums) are readily available online, reviews from past decades are more difficult to come by as they are generally only available in print. Thus contributors are less likely to do the legwork to find them, and we wind up with articles slanted towards present-day critiques of albums. Perhaps we could develop our sub-page beyond a list of online reviews sites, and find ways to point editors towards finding reviews concurrent with albums' releases. Then we could find a way to work this into the tiered system, emphasising a balance between contemporary and recent critical opinions. Sorry for the long post, this is sort of stream-of-consciousness typing. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense, I completely agree. Both viewpoints are vital, you look at the Pinkerton article, it was originally bagged and frowned upon, but eventually the critics came around and now it's one of the stalwart rock releases of the past 20 years. Both opinions are relevant. A separate table or something for retro/old review sources would be magnificent. I actually wouldn't know where to start, places where they store old magazines? I'm not sure. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:ALBUM#Professional_reviews already says "For older albums, try to include not just contemporary but also some more recent reviews." Perhaps that needs turning about to say "For older albums, try to include not just recent but also some contempoary reviews." or some other wording to stress the need to comply with WP:NPOV by including both. --JD554 (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't need a hierarchy of reviews. Editors simply need to be aware of the major publicatons in the field of music criticism (and when I say "publications", I don't mean just print or websites; I mean everything). This includes not just the frontline of criticism in the music industry (Rolling Stone, NME, Spin), but also national magazines and papers of record, like Time, Newsweek, and The New York Times, that aren't solely devoted to covering music but whose opinions certainly have as much cultural weight. Also, if Rolling Stone or The New York Times didn't review the album, see who else did, and make sure they are a notable review source. Basically, don't go looking at Tiny Mix Tapes first for a review. Start at the top and work your way down. If all you can find is a Tiny Mix Tapes review, that's fine; just make sure you haven't overlooked a Spin or Mojo review. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Editors simply need to be aware of the major publicatons in the field of music criticism." "Basically, don't go looking at Tiny Mix Tapes first for a review. Start at the top and work your way down." Isn't all of this "a hierarchy of reviews" which I was proposing to begin with? I do take note of the spread of POV issues and JD's proposed amendment seems nice. I've amended my proposal a bit, too. More input is desired. I might even start constructing a table so you can have a look at a finished product and tell me what you think. RB88 (T) 13:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean the focus should be on intensive research for albums on a case-by-case basis, rather than making a flowchart of music reviewers. One helps the articles themselves while the other is insular list-making, as fun as it may be. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said below, in that case, we SHOULD not have any lists. A Metacritic link and advice points would suffice. RB88 (T) 11:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've noticed that some parts of wikipedia I have reviewed for album articles use for citations. To my knowledge, shouldn't be used as a valid source due to it being a "community-built database" as the site's main page promotes. WP:Film doesn't allow imdb used as a source either due to it's "user-submitted" info rather then expert submitted info. So is it safe to assume isn't a valid source as well? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, Discogs is always removed when an FLC or FAC is begun (or at least should be). It's pretty reliable, but as you say, it's user-submitted and thus we have no way of verifying it. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Figured as much. Okay, thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting! Unless my search is flawed, it looks as though we have nearly 8,000 Wikipedia articles with discog references.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is sometimes used as an external link, but it shouldn't be used as a reference/citation. --JD554 (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Picked up on this a bit late, but MusicBrainz shouldn't be used either. RB88 (T) 09:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know, Musicbrainz is embedded as a paremeter in {{Cite album-notes}} and I've never understood why (though I usually fill it in anyway). Should we nuke it from the template? I don't see any value in providing an external within a reference to a site that doesn't even reprint that reference (Musicbrainz doesn't show album liner notes). --IllaZilla (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never understood it either. Yeah, delete it. With just cause. RB88 (T) 09:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've raised the issue on the template talk page (here) in the hopes that the editor who added the parameter may be able to explain its value. Comments there are welcome. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greetings All. As an offending party, i.e. I have sometimes used Discogs to cite album track listings and/or personnel, am interested in this never-ending discussion. The whole issue of notability/reliable sources at Wikipedia being so open to interpretation, the choice of what is accepted will always depend on the relative strength of the parties involved. History is written by the winners - until the time is ripe for revisionists to speak out. In my experience, allmusic is far more often plain wrong - as in careless review writing & not checking facts - than is Discogs, which is just a simple record of neutral data (which can of course include errors). Not trying to push any preferences here, just adding to the confusion. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think anyone is doubting the usefulness of the site, and I don't see anything wrong with a grabbing a track listing from there - as you don't need to reference that directly anyway. An external link should suffice for any information the site may back up, however, I don't think it should be used for proving notability, in deletion discussions or anything of the sort. There should always be alternate sources. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree that alternative sources should exist - the more the better, but as an indicator of notability, my point is that it is no less so than allmusic.--Technopat (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, third party notable and reliable sources say otherwise. That's just the way it is. Like kiac, I would say have a look at Discogs for minor stuff that doesn't need citing, but leave it at that. Don't use it as a reference. RB88 (T) 14:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Album covers categorization

Hey there everyone, as I'm pretty involved with categories, I noticed while rummaging through Category:Album covers by artist that there doesn't seem to be consistency within categorizing album covers and single covers. For example, there are categories which group album covers and single covers together (Category:Ricky Martin album covers) while others separate them (Category:Coldplay album covers and Category:Coldplay single covers). I've come here to set a consistency with this categorization scheme, but am unsure on how it should be done. Should there be separate categories for album covers and single covers, or should they all be collected together? If the former, should Category:BandName single covers be a subcategory of Category:BandName album covers or should there be in some sort of Category:BandName images and keeping the two separate subcategories? I hope to see some responses to get this messy category in order. Regards. — ξxplicit 05:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In all seriousness, I don't see why these categories exist. We shouldn't be batching non-free images together for easy browsing. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as the category contains __NOGALLERY__, it's no more than a bunch of links to images. — ξxplicit 21:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that this is useful, as it allows one to easily see if a particular cover already exists on Wikipedia before uploading a new one, and thus helps reduce redundancy, and also encourages consistency with naming images in the same category. It's tedious behind-the-scenes work that doesn't always have an immediately obvious benefit, but it's nonetheless in the proper spirit and as long as someone's willing to do it then there's no problem with it. That said, I think I'd prefer just having 1 category per artist. It's less work to deal with. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the input, IllaZilla. More opinions would be appreciated on the matter. — ξxplicit 17:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My hierarchy

<removed> The lists are as exhaustive as I could make them following Metacritic, the FA albums, and what we have written down on the page so far. Don't add to it or move stuff around. Drop a line below here first. Comments are very much welcome and necessary. RB88 (T) 19:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd support this list for now. I don't see any real troubling objections. Great job on calling attention to this. Our system is far out of date. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. RB88 (T) 20:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's it from me I think. Hopefully people will like it and bear in mind that it will probably be a bit nicer if and when it goes live. I'm proposing to include the detail and websites for only LIST 1 to encourage people to scout those first. RB88 (T) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't see how this would be workable, there are literally 1000s of reputable sources (music magazine, newspapers), we can't hope to even begin compiling a list of them. What about magazine and papers from countries other than the US and UK? French media for example would be better than British media for something released only in France. But not according to this list. --JD554 (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My biggest problem is with the classification ""Reputable media before internet saturation". How do we determine that? What marks the period of "internet saturation". Also, why should that be a metric for dividing music reviewers? What about "reputable media" who have excellent web presence anyway? It's a wholly subjective classifcation. By the way, when I tell people to look for print reviews for album articles, it's because I'm telling people to do their research and explore all major sources; it just so happens print reviews that aren't reproduced online are the easiest to overlook. Likewise, many print reviews are available online, in either free or paid formats. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, it definitely holds more weight if you find a review by The New York Times or Time (basically the preeminent news publications in the US) than Allmusic for a record. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, we should not have any review site lists whatsoever on here. Just a Metacritic link and advice. The list is subjective, but I thought it'd be good for unexperienced editors. I'm sure experienced editors would have established their own system, not looking just at a list but at the publication itself and the quality of the review. Oh well, I'll remove it to stop any confusion. RB88 (T) 11:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's an idea that needs to be followed up. We definitely do need a guide of some sort, but separating the publications is perhaps an unworkable and overzealous way of doing things. We could simply just state what you wrote in some way, I however, don't exactly agree with using the ten most reputable sources in every article possible, that would become very monotonous and almost advertising for a very specific set of sources. Case-by-case basis is obviously the way to go, because of intervening factors like mentioned above of undue weight, and also location, relevance/significance to the topic at hand (for example a reputable teen magazine might be okay for a Hannah Montana record, but not a Green Day record) and even just plain common sense. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that a more expansive list of reviewers is a good idea, but a WikiProject-delineated hierarchy is not. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, following your comments, JD's, kiac's, I'm not sure even a more expnasive list is a good idea since we can never exhaust all publications per genre and nationality. I now think a Metacritic link and some advice pointers would suffice. The new editors who mostly focus on new albums would be covered, whilst I'm sure those focusing on decades past know which archives and publications to cover. RB88 (T) 14:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see why we should give weight to Metacritic. It doesn't even include all major reviewers, like Rotten Tomatoes does. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty much this:


  • The use of the most historically reputable media sources (e.g. Rolling Stone, NME, etc.) and papers of record (e.g. New York Times, The Guardian, etc.) is encouraged first.
  • If there are slots left in the 10 review infobox limit or to provide a spread of points of view, add other sources from other media (e.g. Entertainment Weekly, Pitchfork Media, etc.).
  • For older albums, try to include a good spread of contemporary reviews, followed by some retrospective ones to provide historical context.
  • Metacritic is suitable for finding a nice spread of opinion, especially for 21st century releases, and quoted remarks from print-only reviews that are otherwise unobtainable.
I just can't see using preferably only major publications as going to help with weight and POV issues. I think we need to encourage the use of an expansive and broad viewpoint. If it's proven that all these sites on our list are notable and reliable enough for inclusion, it shouldn't really matter what 'tier' they're on. Besides, when you're considering quality of review, I would choose Drowned in Sound over The Age any day... but your suggestion says otherwise. As for using a Metacritic link, I think that's a giant step to not including any reception or critique at all, which is not what we want (do we?). Metacritic is not very expansive, in fact I find it exhaustive, there is a lot of albums by notable artists with plenty of reviews that don't get covered by it. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 02:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed deletion of album and band articles for supposed lack of notability

Hi. Just a friendly notice to alert you to the discussion at [7]. It concerns the proposed deletion of the articles on the band The Shells and its debut album Written Roads, for supposed lack of notability. While I have no idea what your view will be on this issue (if any), you may be interested in joining or following the indicated ongoing discussion. (This is the second time the same nom has nominated the article for AfD -- his prior effort was rebuffed two weeks ago). I have (hopefully correctly) indicated there my understanding (from the above discussions) that it is the convention that if the band article continues to survive the nom's AfDs, the album article should survive as well. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Professional Review Site

User IllaZilla recommended I bring this site to your attention in consideration of adding it to the list here WP:ALBUM/ focuses on recent album review with the focus being on indie rock, hip-hop, electronic and pop genres. The site contains both professional video and photography all copyrighted to the site. The staff consists of 12 established writers both in the US and UK. Pinpointmusic is linked to from several artists, labels, and various music industry sites establishing its notability.Bigdealben (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please provide some sort of backing for your claims, sources. How do we know this is true?
Also, look at the discussions above about adding professional review sites to the list (go to the contents table and look at the sections beginning with 'Review Site:'). It is more of a 'these are always okay review sources' list, rather than a 'these are the only okay review sources' list. So the site doesn't have to be on the list to be used, but it does have to pass as a general notable and reliable source - so this is basically what you would be aiming at, just proving it has some kind of weight when it comes to critique. We won't be able to add it to the list without specific third-party coverage or some kind of justifiable claim reaffirming the site as respected or recognised in the industry. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 10:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back to square one on review sites

Right, here's the deal after our discussions:

  • 1. We still have a frankly crappy, non-exhaustive list of review sites. What's more, we've established that we can never have a complete list considering genre and nationality criteria amongst others.
  • 2. Having a hierarchical list and/or only advice with a Metacritic link seems to be subjective and/or not exhaustive in itself. But, people reviewing at different levels will still complain/point out about possible problems with minor sources, in terms of notability, used ahead of established and historical publications.

Question: What do we do now people? RB88 (T) 18:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion we should continue to have a list of review sites, as this is helpful to editors searching for sources. Of course such a list can never be exhaustive, but that doesn't diminish its value to editors. Having just a Metacritic link is insufficient, as there are many sources that it does not cover. Rather than format the list as a heirarchy, I believe we should expand the list beyond simply online sources and separate the sources into categories based on the type of publication, which is a more helpful method for our editors. For example, separate sections could be created for:
  • Primarily print-based sources devoted to music criticism–such as Rolling Stone, Spin, etc–with links to those that have online copies of articles. For those that don't, we could provide a pointer towards a search database so that editors could try to locate physical copies.
  • Other primarily print-based sources that also provide music criticism–e.g. newspapers like NY Times–again, with links to those that have online article copies and a link to a search engine for those that don't.
  • Primarily digital (online) sources whose scope extends beyond the internet–for example, Allmusic is primarily internet but has also published a number of reference books.
  • Online-only sources–Pitchfork, Drowned in Sound, Sputnikmusic, etc.
Grouping sources in this way doesn't necessarily encourage a "heirarchy", but it does aid readers in findings sources of similar natures and, most importantly, helps them to find a variety of sources of different types. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like it. But what about a Metacritic link for all the sources it covers and then a non-exhuastive list following what you said above? Or adding a star or symbol to those reviewers covered by Metacritic that can be found there.
Hmmm, there aren't that many of the third type of source listed above. How about putting the Pitchforks and DiSs here, too as they have extensive third party features and leaving the following list to the Sputniks and Tiny Mix Tapes? RB88 (T) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While a Metacritic link is valuable, I don't think it should replace a list of the individual sources. Whenever possible, we want editors to cite the original review rather than the Metacritic summary or blurb. So yes, include Metacritic on the page as a jumping-off point, but don't remove the individual review sources just because Metacritic covers them.
For the third bullet point, my idea was to separate sources that are primarily digital but also have print media from those that exist only in the digital realm. That way an editor would know that if they didn't find anything online from that source, they might also want to try searching the physical publications associated with the source. Whereas in the fourth grouping, you'd know that if you didn't find anything on the site that you've exhausted that source.
Another advantage of grouping sources this way is that we can direct editors to the proper ways to cite them (for example, using {{cite web}} for online-only sources and {{Citation}} for a print source that also happens to have an online copy). --IllaZilla (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should we get cracking with it then? RB88 (T) 21:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I can live with this. Sounds good. How about above the table we have some Criteria for using the sources; which could include something like: "Metacritic is a great place to start when searching for professional reviews. It publishes generally reliable sources and provides scores and quotes. However, a reference to the original source is always preferred." I think we just need to keep the list simple at the moment, then we can add more and more as we confirm their status as professional reviews. Just look at how many we could be adding eventually. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 02:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think dividing reviewers into separate sections based on media format is unnecessary. Just list them all in alphabetical order, and indicate next to the name whether it is print or online, and include relevant URLs as necessary. Separating general publications (Time, The New York Times, The Guardian) from music-specific ones (Rolling Stone, Spin, NME) would be more useful. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the idea is that this way we will be able to provide the sources with more clarity. I would like to see these archives that have been mentioned above but not specified, apart from old newspapers from a library, I wouldn't know where to start searching for retro reviews. Anyway, I've drawn up what is let's say 'Prototype 1', incomplete, but the idea is on paper (in type?) now: User:Kiac/Review table. Go play with it, whatever you want. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A table is needlessly complicated for this purpose. One of the advantages of a list is it's far easier to update than having to deal with table script. I still have issues with the organization scheme. It seems more inteterested in categorizing media types than in illuminating edtiors about what's available for use. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand a list is easier to update; but we only update it once a month or so? And it's still debatable that a list is needlessly complicated, I personally do not enjoy scrolling down a page to get a list of sites with repeated information beside them. At least with a table there is several columns and it's sorted into some sort of organisation. Which makes me come to think - do we really need to note the scale when it is usually clearly published in each source? Nevertheless, I think it needs cleaning up in some way, it's too cluttered, and then when we expand it further it's just going to be a bitch to scroll through. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're conveying a handy list of credible reviewers for editors, not making a catalogue of music media as an end in of itself. I think that's unintentionally being overlooked, the result being the chart columns. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But we have the potential to turn this into more than just a list of reviewers: we can make it an actual guide to not only assist editors in finding reviews, but help them find reviews from a variety of sources as well as explain how to cite them. Think about conducting a search through a university library: not all the different types of sources (books, journals, periodicals, etc.) are lumped together on the same shelves, and typically they don't use the same search engine either; there's a separate search process for journal & periodical articles than there is for books, for example. In the long run I'd like this to develop into a sourcing guide rather than just a list of review sites. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The same thing can be done without a table; my concern is making that process needlessly complicated. All you need to do is state the source's name, what format it is published in, and how to access it. It's all really straightforward. As for how to cite sources, there's plenty of guideline pages on how to do that anyway. We don't need a music specific guide on how to do this (especially since this is the Albums WikiProject, and not the Music one). WesleyDodds (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
95% of the time new users will still use link instead of a <ref> tag. There has been no proper transition, we need to enforce this further and get others into the habit of referencing properly. A prominent link to WP:CIT may do the trick though. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any guidelines on order of tracklistings on an album box set?

On LOtUSFLOW3R#Track listings, a box set of 3 different albums, the albums are listed in alphabetical order. This order means that the least notable one is listed first, with the main album LOtUSFLOW3R listed second. This doesn't seem like a sensible order, but is there a guideline that says they should be alphabetically listed? If there's no guideline, what's the opinion here? Nelson58 (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if there is a guideline, but alpha order makes some sense to me in that it is easier to apply than a subjective "relative notability standard" would be.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it subjective to suggest that an album by Prince is more notable than one by the virtually unknown Bria Valente? The article's title is LOtUSFLOW3R, and the album set is referred to as LOtUSFLOW3R by multiple reliable sources, as well as Prince's own website. I don't see any problems with subjectivity here given the reliable sources. Nelson58 (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we think of an approach to be applied across the board, I'm sure we can foresee difficulty applying a notablity standard in other situations. Editors here even at times have great difficulty in agreeing on notability in AfDs ... I think to apply a notability standard here would lead to edit warring and wasted energy. But maybe others will chime in with a different view.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review site: MusicOMH

Done some work on this, yet to have a Wikipedia page but it is an established website with published credibility, judging from what I have found. The site has been referred to by many reliable sources, which include, but are not limited to:

Recommend it goes into the professional sites section, as a reliable source with a wide selection of reviews on different genres. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support per Kiac's research. Seems to have a fairly solid reputation in the world of music criticism and to pass WP:RS. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, definitely looks like a reliable source. Kiac had done some good digging there. --JD554 (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. For the records, the site was added to WP:ALBUM/REVSIT by k.i.a.c. yesterday. Well done! – IbLeo (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Starting its own wiki article would be beneficial as well. Especially as people (including yours truly) don't like to add reviews that don't have a wikilink. Any takers? RB88 (T) 09:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been intending on doing it, been busy doing an FA review for someone in particular! ;) Will get around to it if no one else does. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haha. OK, then. Although I might beat you to it. I fancy another DYK... ;) RB88 (T) 15:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've given it a bit of a kickstart in a sandbox, but since it's been deleted twice in the past I'll probably work on getting some clarity into it before upping it. Feel free to help, then you can take the DYK if you want. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 07:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MusicOMH now created, make sure we link to it guys! :) Kiac (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review publication: Uncut

Could someone add it to the list please? I don't think I have to explain/prove this a lot: UK magazine owned by NME's media company and has been in publication since 1996. RB88 (T) 15:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks solid to me, based on the publication history & the NME parentage. How's their review content? --IllaZilla (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
Usually snappy online and more detailed in print. Pretty much like most other places. Reminds me of Entertainment Weekly a bit when I read it, i.e. a new, upstart 90's publication with as much depth as it's needed. Always been used by Metacritic, too. RB88 (T) 16:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Valid well known magazine. Their reviews are also included on sites such as Metacritic. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support as well, good quality publication, NME ownership is also quite reassuring. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 01:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Well-reputed magazine with widespread distribution in Europe (at least). – IbLeo (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. Uncut has been added to WP:ALBUM/REVSIT per above consensus. – IbLeo (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Personnel can include band members and also others such as session musicians, guest musicians to name but two categories. Thoughts/guidelines on formatting the Personnel section with regard to these? I've seen subheadings such as "Guests" in one or two articles but would like to know if there's a weight of opinion about this. (If so, perhaps the project page could usefully elaborate?) PL290 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I prefer to go on a case-by-case to be honest. Structure as you think is best as every album has a different conception. As long it's intuitive and commonsensual, then you're not going to get any complaints. Not from me anyway. Arguing about synonyms seems a bit weird to me. RB88 (T) 18:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, case-by-case basis as each album is different. I rather like what we've got at 21st Century Breakdown#Personnel and have been using that format lately, which works pretty well for rock albums. But it might not work as well for another genre. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That two-columns approach is pretty cool; it's the first time I see it and I like it. It reduces the needless whitespace you often see in Personnel sections. Having said that, I must admit that I sympathise with PL290 to the extent that I have also seen some pretty weird headings in Personnel sections (although I can't remember any of them right now). Without being too directive, maybe we could come up with some suggestive, but not too directive, guidelines to help newcomers. Something like "when deemed appropriate, the Personnel section can be divided into subsections like Musicians, Band, Additional musician, Guest musicians, Production, Artwork, etc. Thoughts? – IbLeo (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a bad thought. But don't we have that in essence with the examples linked to on this WP page?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. But this is a project talk page, and in a month or so it will be archived. From that point on only the most insisting hardcore editor will find it. That's why I propose to add some text to the Personnel section of the project page. I note your idea of pointing our members to some good examples for illustration. In my own experience, that's always helpful. – IbLeo (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree it would be helpful for the section to make a statement and link to examples, as has been done for Track listing. To be even less prescriptive, how about "The layout of the Personnel section should be decided on a case-by-case basis and may sometimes include category headings for different roles. See article xxx or article yyy for examples." PL290 (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I propose we suggest some subsection headings on the project page as IbLeo mentions, as well as a couple of links to good examples, but keep it succinct such as "The Personnel section may be divided into subheadings such as Band, Additional musicians, Production or Artwork. See article xxx or article yyy for examples." CuriousEric (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I honestly don't think personnel sections should be mandatory at all, and should be used only when absolutely necessary. Oftentimes they're redundant to the prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't say I disagree—for the band article it makes sense to be mandatory, but it doesn't necessarily add anything to include it on all the albums unless there's something interesting about the personnel for a particular album. If there's general agreement, it would be good to state this too in any guidance added to the project page. PL290 (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well there should be some sort of further info that is useful in there, more than just the members and producer, which can easily be covered without a whole section. It is a useful section that I believe is required to establish full coverage of an album. Kiac (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

←I agree w/ Kiac. There's no reason to exclude pertinent, verifiable information, and the personnel section often contains more information on the production staff, etc. than the prose does. Even if it doesn't, having the section nicely summarizes these credits in a succinct way for the reader. Really, how often does the prose name every musician who played on an album, or the various recording engineers, mix engineers, and mastering technicians involved in finishing the album's production? --IllaZilla (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, I agree with kiac and Illazilla. Having a Personnel section falls under the comprehensiveness of the article and a non-inclusion usually makes me suspicious about the editor's depth of research. RB88 (T) 21:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Really, how often does the prose name every musician who played on an album, or the various recording engineers, mix engineers, and mastering technicians involved in finishing the album's production?" Quite a few, actually; at least as are discussed by secondary sources and beyond the liner notes. It's not an impossible task; in fact it's pretty easy if there were less than ten people involved in the making of the whole album (as often happens in regards to indie releases). In many cases a personnel section is completely redundant to the prose. That's the problem. I also hate that personnel section are mainly a regurgitation of liner notes. The mere presence of a personnel section doesn't quell anxieties I might have about an article's depth of research, because by and large you can just pull that from the CD. Hell, film articles don't have personnel sections; at most they have in-depth cast sections, like the one at Iron Man (film), and that's only because they have to discuss the characters. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Italicized titles

Template and nascent standard I noticed today that Remain in Light uses {{italictitle}} to italicize the title of the article. When I applied it to Everything That Happens Will Happen Today, I was informed of this: Wikipedia:NC#Special_characters_and_formatting. Somehow or other, a special dispensation for italicized titles was made for taxonomic names, but I do not know where, when, or how this agreement was reached. Does anyone have any feedback to give on the prospect of italicized titles for album names? As far as I am concerned, it only makes sense to italicize the title of the article as long as that same phrase will be italicized in the text as well. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know where the exception for taxonomic names originated, but WP:NC#Special characters and formatting is pretty clear: "Do not apply formatting." MOS:TTR#Italics and formatting further says that {{italic title}} "should be used only in special cases – currently its only common use is for taxonomic genera and species". I don't think that albums are a "special case"...if we italicized these in the article title, then logically we should italicize the titles of all articles about creative works (books, films, etc.), and pretty soon there are no "special cases", italicization is the norm. Also this would cause problems in cases where the album title is not the only word in the article title (such as when the title has some disambiguation attached to it). I think the key factor here is that italicization is a MoS thing...the italics are not actually part of the album title. It's the same logic as quotation marks around song titles: we do it in the article text, but not in the article title, because this formatting is not techincally part of the title, merely a stylization guideline used in English writing. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would not consider album titles special cases, ans as pointed out by Illa Zilla, the disambiguation would also get italicized which wouldn't be the intent (ie The Number of the Beast (album)). J04n(talk page) 01:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh? Take a look at Template:Italic title for how to not italicize the disambiguation; this is a non-issue. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 04:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The title at the top of the page is the title of the article, as IllaZilla expertly explained, it shouldn't be italicized. --JD554 (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The subjectivity on this issue never ceases to amaze me. But I'll go along with it. Someone should make MOS crystal clear though. No pussyfooting. RB88 (T) 09:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Again I feel compelled to point out that this is being used all over the place (e.g. Jack Kirby's Fourth World and Catch-22.) I will post at RfC to determine when/whether this should be used. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 05:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something seriously bothers me about your proposal. If we italicize album titles, we would logically also use quotes around song titles (i.e. Under Pressure should be moved to "Under Pressure") to be consistent with WP:MUSTARD. Besides being tedious, it would again be in strong conflict with the explicit language in Wikipedia:NC#Special_characters_and_formatting. – IbLeo (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trans-Europe Express

There is a good amount of debate on the sources used on the article for Trans-Europe Express (album). It's getting a bit out of control so if any editors would like to share their opinions, it would be greatly welcomed. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Remove articles from the Year in Music categories"

I am new to this project, and noticed Remove articles from the Year in Music categories in the list of things to do/maintenance. What is the purpose of this endeavor? Is that type of category being discontinued for ALL album articles (I doubt it, because that would be an enormous project) or have certain album articles been targeted for this purpose? And if so, why? Please advise. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Album articles should be categorised into '2009 albums', not '2009 in music'. That's what I believe is the purpose of this statement. kiac. (talk-contrib) 05:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Albums to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 06:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent indeed. I have added a link to this page from the Subpages sections of the project page for easy access. It's interesting to note that two of the current articles in Top 5 (#1, The Blueprint 3 and #4, Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel) are only rated as Start class, although the former seems a bit underrated to my eyes. Could give our members some ideas about where to put their next efforts ;-). – IbLeo (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review publications: Rock Sound, Spin, Metal Hammer, Vibe, Mojo, Kerrang! and Q

Rock Sound (magazine)

Should be enough to prove its worth, it seems to be a highly circulated and notable mag in the UK with sufficient coverage and useful and trustworthy critique. Comments encouraged. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spin (magazine)

I began researching this after realising it wasn't on the list. It's a given, not even going to review the sources there's that many, practically every major publication internationally has referenced the mag; here's a few:

Detailed info about the magazine in here, it was started in 1985 by General Media, which publishes Penthouse. The magazine was sold to the owners of Vibe at a price of US$43.3 million, with a circulation of over 500,000 way back in 1997. Comments encouraged. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Easy support for both. Be bold and just add them. I don't think you need consensus for these. Oh, and add Vibe, too, while you're at it. RB88 (T) 13:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I just prefer being thorough, so when I get the "Who are you to say what is professional and what is not?" chirpers, I can be like look here etc etc. I think Metal Hammer should probably be added too, will have to do a little checking up, but i think i read that it took over NME for the first time for circulation figures pretty recently, which makes it pretty damn massive. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 15:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong support on both. Spin is a no-brainer, and Rock Sound is more or less a given since it's a widely circulated print source. Kiac's research spells it out; both are very reliable. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Metal Hammer and Vibe

Well these are obviously going to be added, so I think since Metal Hammer's circulation is now bigger than NME's we can safely add that as well. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support for Rock Sound, Spin and Metal Hammer. Never heard about Vibe though; would like to see some evidence for that one. – IbLeo (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vibe links: Guardian, [21], NY Times, [22], LA Times, [23]. Eaasily verified. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Never heard of Vibe? It's been in print for 16 years & is generally found alongside most other major music publications on periodical shelves. It's definitely established. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to excuse my ignorance by my geographical location :-). Around here I mostly see Rock & Folk on the shelves; for the English language magazines I have to go to my local airport shop which doesn't happen that often. Of course I wholeheartedly trust your judgment, so let's add it. By the way, the article says "Vibe was a music and entertainment magazine..." and then later that it has been taken over by some company that "feel privileged to purchase and resurrect such a storied brand." So is it defunct or not? – IbLeo (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haha, no worries. I guess it's not that big a brand in the Franco-Danish world. ;) As far as I know, it's still going although you never know in the current climate. I was shocked when Blender stopped print. But if the magazines' websites are going then the content is still pretty good, if not as good as print. Plus, we need it for older albums as well, especially urban contemporary. RB88 (T) 15:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, based on the article it seems to have stopped print, but perhaps the new owners are going to start it up again. I didn't know Blender was defunct...they were one of the big ones. I usually only purchase Alternative Press and the occasional Spin or Rolling Stone, and rarely an AMP. Guess I didn't notice some titles disappearing from the shelves. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vibe is on its way back around the end of the year. [24] k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 01:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks everyone, for widening my horizon. – IbLeo (talk) 06:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


And now we are at printed music magazines, could we add Mojo, the only music magazine that I subscribe to (so I don't have to go to the airport every month and pay double prize :-)? One of UK's biggest music magazines, established in 1993, monthly distribution of more than 100.000 copies, cited by many reliable sources:

  • The Times: [25] ("...writing for the two heavyweight music monthlies, Mojo and Uncut.") [26] ("Mojo magazine interviewed him in Rome")
  • The Independant: [27] [28] [29]
  • The Guardian: [30] [31]
  • BBC: [32]
  • I'm voicing my strong support for all of the above (Spin, Vibe, Rock Sound & Mojo). All are widely-circulated print publications specializing in music criticism, with publication histories of 16+ years and a solid reputation in the music community. And all easily pass WP:RS. I don't really think any of these are questionable & say go ahead & add 'em. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of them, support. (And any more kiac decides to put up in the future. lol) RB88 (T) 21:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added all above, however have not been able to find online reviews with ratings for Mojo or Vibe, partly due to their sites being unusually slow. If someone else would like to have a look and add the scales to WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, would be appreciated. I assume their magazine issues would be a lot more abundant with reviews. Kiac (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mojo uses a 5-star rating scale for their reviews. I had a closer look at their website, and it is true that while the printed version of each monthly issue easily contains 100+ reviews, very few of them are accessible online, and those who are mainly aims to inspire the reader to buy the printed magazine. Here are a few examples that I managed to find: [33] [34] I guess that it makes sense from a commercial point-of-view, but it is rather disappointing for us as we are obliged to use the printed version as a source. On the other hand, I found that they post a "disc of the day" on the website, and that they are all archived here. This constitutes a rich source of reviews for older albums (up to 40 years old), something which is rather rare online and consequently quite valuable for us. I have updated WP:ALBUM/REVSIT accordingly. – IbLeo (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've just realised we don't have this, either. It's an obvious inclusion, the major UK rock magazine, worldwide supply, etc. etc. My question is however, do we use their format of rating KKKK's out of five, or do we insist that a numbered system is used (4/5). Take into account that the current documentation says to use the same format as used in the publication, however, adding 'Kerrang! (KKKK)<ref>' isn't describing what the rating is out of, which is essentially the important part (could we use (KKKK/5)?). Kiac (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think using either stars or numbers is more appropriate. Saying KKKK/5 isn't really specific and I think most users wouldn't understand what it's trying to say. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support adding it, no objection to it being done right now as it's an obvious one we need to have. As for the ratings, I'd say just use the star scale. The "K" scale is just a star scale that uses a K instead to associate it with the mag's title. For all intents & purposes it's a star scale. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Agree with IllaZilla on the rating scale format. However as with Mojo we might face the issue of their reviews being unavailable online. I took a quick tour of their website, and I can't find them. – IbLeo (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unlike Mojo though, I always see Kerrang! reviews being added (with correct references too...). We can't ignore these publications because they aren't posting online, I think it is best to encourage the use of a widespread magazine over a website with a decent reader base. kiac. (talk-contrib) 07:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article reveals that Q was Britain's biggest music magazine in 2008, measured in circulation. It seems an obvious omission inclusion to me. They use a 5-star rating scale, and as with the other music magazines published by Bauer Media Group, their reviews are not available online. I think we should add it anyway. – IbLeo (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support its inclusion, but not its omission(?). Haha. kiac. (talk-contrib) 07:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, my previous entry is not one of my best efforts. Must still be a bit sleepy, or maybe the shift to wintertime last night has sidetracked my brain. I fixed it, and will make myself another cup of coffee  :-) – IbLeo (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has everyone suddenly gone into reclusion? It's rare to observe 5 days of silence on this project talk page! Anyway, if nobody opposes over the weekend, I will add Q to the list. – IbLeo (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. Added to WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. – IbLeo (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should close this thread and address new suggestions for review sites in new sections. Otherwise it will just keep growing endlessly and never reach the 30 days age it takes to get archived. – IbLeo (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project template on movie articles?

After viewing the wonderful new Popular pages tool, I've noticed that a lot of movies have our template on their talk pages. I get that their soundtracks are technically albums, but don't see how films at all fall into our jurisdiction? Would it not be easier to cover soundtrack guidelines in the WP:FILM project with links to here for more info, and save us the bother of being linked to for no specific reason? You don't link to the film template on a singles or DVD page because there is a video discussed. kiac. (talk-contrib) 12:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Technically albums"? A soundtrack released as an album is an album, there's no technically about it. As an album, it falls within the scope of this project. Remember that WikiProjects don't own articles and that multiple tagging fosters inter-project collaboration. --JD554 (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


So on an album page I noticed that someone removed the section about the album's singles and combined it together with information about the other songs. I changed it back since every other album page I saw had a Singles section. Yet this user keeps removing and combining them. Should this be changed? Aren't the articles supposed to have a section dedicated to the singles? ---Shadow (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I don't think we have any particular guidelines in this project stating that information about singles should go into a separate section. I am well aware that it is common practice in many articles, but this doesn't mean that it is mandatory. I would say, judge on a case-by-case basis how it's best presented. And seek resolution on the article's talk page before the reverts gets out of hand. – IbLeo (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alice in chains/ Post Rock

Considering the sounds played by bands like tristeza, explosions in the sky, etc, wouldn't be Alice in chains' album "Jar of flies" considered as a forerunner of Post Rock genre?

I would like some feedback and consideration about this.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outofairplanes (talkcontribs) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Jar of Flies sounds very little like post-rock, especially considering the presence of the tracks "I Stay Away", "No Excuses", and "Swing on This". Besides, post-rock had started years earlier with artists like Talk Talk and Bark Psychosis (to name merely two). = ∫tc 5th Eye 00:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. yeah, that too. = ∫tc 5th Eye 04:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion should really be on Talk:Alice in Chains. Also, what Jo4n said, you're not going to get anywhere throwing your own opinion around, it has absolutely no weight in respect to the publication of the genre of a band. kiac. (talk-contrib) 14:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply] reviews

In regards to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites: staff reviews should be listed as under sites that can be used in the Template:Infobox album review section. Not being an established user, I cannot edit this myself, but staff reviews from the mentioned website are genuine, critical and impartial reviews, hence a reliable source. Petternitter (talk) 14:35 (GMT), November 11 2008.

I've yet to attempt to establish the site's reliability, it obviously has a massive bearing on the (especially indie/alternative) music industry, and is rewarded with a clearly notable article on Wikipedia. The recent method of adding review sites can be seen above though, third party coverage of the site's reviews needs to be established through the linking to sources which have referred to the site and their reviews. I'm also not so sure about their user reviews, they are monitored and appropriately added by an editor, I suppose this may scrape into our current guidelines (however, I don't like the idea of just anyone being alongside much more credible sources). kiac. (talk-contrib) 15:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Song credits

There's two discussion at WikiProject Songs--WikiProject Songs#Beatles songwriting credits and WikiProject Songs#Infobox proposal--that have some revelance to this project, given albums have to deal with song credits as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good Article Reassessment of Shag Times

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Shag Times/GA1. I have placed the article on hold for one week to allow for these issues to be fixed. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good Article Reassessment for Mezzamorphis

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Mezzamorphis/GA1. I have placed the article on hold for one week to allow for these issues to be fixed. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review sources: Urban music

The Source, XXL, URB

XXL, The Source and URB should be three more no-brainer print inclusions. Right now on the list only Allmusic, Stylus and the newly added Vibe deal with urban music significantly, leading to an over-reliance by editors on the sometimes eccentric coverage of Allmusic in this area, IMO. XXL and URB put some of their magazine content online.

One of the earliest hip hop websites and accepted in practice as an RS throughout en.wikipedia. A rare source for pre-2000s reviews, since editors are not at libraries combing through print mags. Cited by the International Herald Tribune[35], The Herald[36]. Founded by contributor to URB[37], interviewed on NPR [38]. Rapreviews is the only online review source recommended in Peter Shapiro's Rough Guide to Hip Hop, 2nd. ed., London: Rough Guides, 2005. ISBN 978-1843532637 (p. 403).

Hip-Hop Connection

Hip-Hop Connection was a UK hip hop mag, the longest-running in the world. Again recommended by Shapiro (see above). Print only until very recently when it was re-born in PDF format.

The Fader

The Fader

The Wire

The Wire

This rather ugly-looking site seems a good source for reviews. Cited by the Boston Globe,[39][40] LA Times,[41] MTV,[42] The Sunday Times ("respected site HipHopDX"),[43] cited by NPR for its part in debunking an LA Times investigation[44], senior editor on NPR[45]. Contributors have covered hip hop for outlets like the Washington Post, NPR, etc. so seems highly reputable. (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support all of the above (Rock Sound thru HipHopDX). They are all good quality established publications/sites and should all be perfectly valid sources of reviews.--Michig (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hmm, hiphopdx must have heard me: they've just revamped their site design. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Any more comments on these? (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am considering

joining this project (I am actually thrilled to discover that my scanned in two parts and then joined together cover of My Generation is still here, since Jan 2005) but am wondering if this is the place to do EPs, which are 45's but contain art work worthy of albums. Any thoughts before I head out and do the wrong thing? Carptrash (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome! I believe this project covers EPs, but some longer member can confirm whether I speak the truth.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this project covers EPs as well as full albums. Really we cover all types of releases except singles, which are under the scope of WikiProject Songs. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Illa. My opening opus, Freddie and the Dreamers (album) is almost ready - tho I'm not going to try any boxes or fancy stuff . . . . . . . . . ............. yet. Carptrash (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cover art image resolution

I've been trying to find the discussion behind the guidelines for saying that image art should be over 200px but not more than 300px. At the same time it recommends finding images at Amazon. Amazon users regularly post 500px images. How is "low-res" defined? I have found several Wikipedia cover-art images that are 500px and some are a little bigger. It seems to me that if 500px images are widely distributed over the internet by Amazon and others, Wikipedia can follow the trend. Before starting a discussion about this here, I'm wondering what previous discussions have already taken place. Can anyone provide links? Thanks. -- SamuelWantman 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having found no definitive discussions, I've started one about upping the guideline for this to "less than 500px" at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline#CD_image_resolution. -- SamuelWantman 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple groups with the same name

I was unaware of this section until I tried to solve the problem above, but, at least in the main section I have frequently tried to search information on favored but obscure groups and found information on another group that used the name. In particular there are two groups, CHRYSALIS and THE INFORMATION SOCIETY which I was looking for. (The CHRYSALIS one is particularly surprising, since several of the members were involved with other groups, Vocalist Nancy Nairn and (I think) writer and leader James "Spider" Barbour worked with Frank Zappa and drummer Dahoud Shaar was part of the band on at least the earliest Van Morrison solo albums, ASTRAL WEEKS and MOONDANCE.)

I could start a page, but it would be little more than a listing of tracks and snippets of information like the above -- in fact I couldn't even do this for INFORMATION SOCIETY unless I merely copied the liner notes, since all I know about the group is that they exist, I have their album, and that I like their music.

There are many other examples of this. For example, I believe at least four groups called WINGS released albums before the McCartney led group. (At least one did because I had it -- sadly, no longer.)

Anyway, should I just 'throw up stubs' on these groups, or is there likely to be someone who could do a better job now that the topic has been raised? (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Prup (aka Jim Benton)Reply[reply]

This isn't really the place to be discussing this. Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. The first thing is they need to pass Wikipedia:NMUSIC, if you can only remember them for being non-noteworthy bands then the articles will just be deleted in a flash, you need to prove their notability with verifiable sources. kiac. (talk-contrib) 01:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disambiguation recommendations include mentioning the band's nationality, or decade when they were founded (or were most notable) in brackets, i.e. "Name (English band)" or "Name (1960s band)" or even "Name (1960s English band)". --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]