Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55

Genres and User-Contributed Sources

Considering the nature of multiple opinions for genres combining into a single solution in many user-contributed sources for genres (such as RateYourMusic), why are they considered an "unreliable" source while newspapers featuring a single opinion from a so-called professional are?--F-22 RaptörAces High 18:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subjective or not, all sources must follow WP:RS and not violate WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't answer my concern at all.--F-22 RaptörAces High 17:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'll have to rephrase your question then. It looked like you were asking why were couldn't use user generated content to source something subjective like genre, in which the answer would be, because Wikipedia's very definition of "reliable" says that it can't be user-generated unless it comes from an expert of sorts. (And when they say expert, they mean someone on the level of like Gene Siskel, not a random guy who signed up for a Last FM account last week.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The opinions are collective, it's not just one opinion, otherwise, it would be just as reliable as the sources this silly website considers "reliable." I'm not referring to a random person's blog here. In this case, subjectivity and objectivity DOES make a difference and Wikipedia's rules should reflect such. You'd be surprised how many people who express some passion in music favor getting their information through sites like RateYourMusic over Wikipedia, because they ironically don't consider Wikipedia reliable for the very reason we're discussing now.--F-22 RaptörAces High 17:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't matter if its one user-generated voice or a hundred of them, they still violate WP:USERG. It's fundamentally outside of the scope of what Wikipedia cites or covers. Reviews are equally subjective, yet we don't cite user-reviews on places like MetaCritic either. If people want to know what the "general population" or "fans" thought, then then there's an endless availability of user reviews, blogs, social media sites, messageboards, comment sections, etc = that they can check out. But we don't document that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're just pointing me to rules. You're not telling me WHY this is a rule. I'm not interested in talking about reviews considering reviews are absolutely meaningless to me. At least reviews are presented in a subjective manner on Wikipedia. That's not the case for genres.--F-22 RaptörAces High 18:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many of the reasons are listed at the policies I've listed, but beyond that, a major reason is because it'd be too easy to "play the system to get your way" if we allowed for these sorts of sources. An example: Let's say I'm a crazy person who thinks Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit", to my ears, sounds like East Coast Hip Hop. With the current system, if someone told me to find a source, I'd be out of luck, period. Now, if we allowed for user-generated content, I could go off-wiki, create five accounts elsewhere, and create entries that say that, and then go "Look! Look! Multiple sources say its true! Time to include it!". Now, obviously that particular example isn't likely, but sub in "a generic metal band" and "20 different metal denominations" and you can see how it would happen all over the place. Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You truly underestimate user-contributed sources. If you had gone to any Nirvana album over at RateYourMusic voting in East-Coast Hip-Hop, not only would you quickly get voted against, but there's a report feature that when reviewed, you wouldn't be allowed to vote genres ever again there. RateYourMusic also has a strict line dealing with multiple accounts, that you would end up losing all of them if the abuse is obvious. RateYourMusic trusts its users that you can classify artists by influences or "secondary genres." Some of the people I meant over there, elaborate on pitches, moods, undertones of music that in my opinion, have knowledge of music far superior to that of any mainstream music critic out there. I assure you that after spending time there, I found much less inaccuracies there than Wikipedia and I think many people outside Wikipedia would agree with me. Even sites like Encyclopaedia Metallum have a serious and motivated nature towards music despite being user-contributed.

As for your comment on the denominations of metal, that's where subjectivity truly is subjectivity. I consider Kamelot mainly a power metal band. Some people consider them progressive metal but I'm not going to flip off the handle over that because I acknowledge that Kamelot DOES have certain progressive elements. However, I completely trust that no band is going to be classified under 20 metal subgenres, but if it ever comes to this, what is hard to just simply call them a metal band? Frank Zappa's music is all over the place. He plays psychedelic rock, progressive rock, jam rock, jazz-fusion, but he's simply called a rock musician or even just a composer (even on Wikipedia). Even his genre table isn't cluttered with subgenre after subgenre.--F-22 RaptörAces High 23:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is why your system is broken, because you use multiple subgenres to describe music within a display that seems like it's presented in such a factual way, to the point it gets debated, but your dumb bureaucratic rules doesn't allow for that flexibility because a commoner's opinions are irrelevant DESPITE genres having a sensitive nature in subjectivity. It doesn't matter if it's 5 opinions, 50 opinions, because the music critic is always right. Right? In this case, is it so hard to just use less subjective, base genres to describe musicians? Just call Lady Gaga a pop artist, Paramore a rock band, but no, you have to call Paramore emo just because some bullshit critic said so.--F-22 RaptörAces High 23:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you've got 2 choices. Either go much higher up in the Wikipedia system to gather a consensus to rewrite the core principles of the entire website. Or follow the current rules. No amount of this sort of ranting is going to lead to what you want, because it isn't remotely rooted in policy, and we don't create/change policy on a Wikiproject-level. Sergecross73 msg me 02:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So then why should I abide to your rules if you can't justify them?--F-22 RaptörAces High 16:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your whole premise is flawed. It's like asking "Why don't we play basketball with a baseball? It'd be easier to dunk!" It doesn't matter if it's easier, it would cease to be the sport of basketball anymore. Same thing here: Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say. That's experts and critics, not randos on the Internet. Also, if you knowingly break policy, you'll be blocked. So, you've got 2 reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, your whole premise is flawed. You've made one attempt at an argument against my logic, and I counter-argued against it. The rest of the time you simply referred me to rules. I don't understand what your sport analogy has to do with anything either. Go ahead and block me, it seems that's all you people really care about in the end.--F-22 RaptörAces High 19:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I gave you one hypothetical example of how people abuse the system with user-generated sources, and you responded with a naive generalization about how you felt they wouldn't, which is silly, because I've seen people try to do it first hand. Maybe you need to spend more time around here, so you can see how dishonest editors will try every trick in the book to push their point of view? Then maybe you'll learn why we chose to use the type of sources that can't be altered or directly changed. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But it's okay if critics push their opinion, despite how way off they are. Ooookay.--F-22 RaptörAces High 19:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we adhere to WP:RS and WP:NPOV, yes. (Keeping in mind, we're talking about genre, where it's something that's subjective and usually more in a gray area than an objectively right/wrong one. Genre is rarely as objectively wrong as citing someone saying "1+1=3".) Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
F-22 Raptored Yes, it's okay if critics push their opinions. That's what critics are supposed to do. The reason that we have policies such as adherence to reliable sources is so that we can determine what is worth including on Wikipedia and what is not. I could go outside and make some observations about nature and type those up on my blog. But if I then tried to use that to support nature-related content on Wikipedia, I'd have those edits reverted. However, if I published those findings through a peer-reviewed journal, I might be able to put that on Wikipedia, if it improved the article. The same thing with music-related articles. The point of having reliable sources is that, except for the rare cases where we are citing an expert (such as Gene Siskel or Robert Christgau directly, it isn't just one person's opinion being cited. That one person had to have their content checked for accuracy by an editor and/or publisher. Generally, the more eyes that check over the content before it's published, and the greater the reputation that the publication holds for accuracy and informed opinion, the more reliable that source is considered. I understand that some user-generated websites, such as Encyclopedia Metallum, have a form of editorial control, but there is no clear way to filter out the content and no way to establish the credentials of a contributor.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no interest in discussing this any further. I'm stating why I think my point of view is viable and why I think Wikipedia's bureaucratic way of prioritizing data is currently broken.--F-22 RaptörAces High 01:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox artist discography

A rewrite of {{Infobox artist discography}} is being proposed. Your comments are invited at Template_talk:Infobox_artist_discography#Style_violations. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translating a track listing?

An IP has provided a translation for the track listing for Romance (Luis Miguel album), but I need to know if such translations require a reliable source or if they're fine on their own. See Mi Tierra which provided official translations on the album booklet. Thanks, Erick (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Bowie - The Next Day genres

There's an ongoing a discussion on the genres of The Next Day article on Talk:The Next Day. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upcoming albums and discographies

Hi. Should upcoming albums be added to the discography page of an artist/band? This relates to the David Bowie discography page and his upcoming album that has its own article. I'm assuming that a named future album (with sources) should be included? Also ping @Mrmoustache14: for thoughts. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No they should not. Many albums get announced and are never released. We should wait until they have been released before adding them. -- (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why should they not? What policy can you cite? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've said why above. As for policy, WP:CRYSTAL#5 springs to mind. We do no know that the album will definitely be released. -- (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at some articles at random, the following all having albums scheduled for release after today AND are included in the discog page: Megadeth discography, Suede discography, Little Mix discography and Adele discography. Are they ALL wrong too Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And look closer at WP:CRYSTAL, esp #1 - "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue is sources. An album might be announced but will they much further then release a few details and a release date. That amounts to just a press-release. A page can be set up but before more details are know it should really redirect to the main artist page and the section relating to the future release. If and when it appears and reviews are stacking up the redirect can be removed. Karst (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) When the title, release date or other key information is not known, then it should not be included. I revert entries of "TBA" (often TBA as if to be announced was the name of the album) "TBD and others on-sight. The reasoning is that if we don't know enough about the album to give it a name or when it may be released, it's a problem. I have seen albums be planned to be released and yet are delayed for years over contractual issues or other reasons and even undergoe name changes in the intervening years. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has a title and release date. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue we have here, is that a name has been given for the album Blackstar (David Bowie album). However, it isn't due to be released until January 2016. Should it be in a discography, which is a list of what has been released by an artist? -- (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) It's not like I didn't read what you wrote the first few times. It's just a bad argument
What I failed to capture after the edit conflict is that if the album has reliable sources and, in this case, an article, it meets verifiability criteria, notability guidelines and so there's no reason on earth to remove it. CRYSTAL applies only to the creation of articles, not to their inclusion in other articles and it's not even a straw-man argument: it fails at the point of inclusion. The point is simple, if it's notable, it should be included. If there's enough information to have an article, there's no reason to exclude it from a discography. Discographies are catalogues of an artist's work, not simply of what has or has not been released by an artist. Looking at Oxford it includes compositions. Subjects have written compositions that have not been recorded or performed and so it could include that. Webster suggests that it also includes future work by listing "date of release". I don't think you have a definition that states "only works that have already been released." Your artificial boundary of "already released" is yours alone. Not a common term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How's this any different for an actor who's filmography has them listed in appearing in a film in January 2016? It isn't. And where does it say that you can not include know future releases on the article? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More whataboutery? A case in point which I think illustrates this quite well is Toy (David Bowie album). That album was due to be released, but never was, so it isn't in the discography. That very well may happen to Blackstar too. -- (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More "may happen". Another weak argument from you. You haven't answered the original question about the four discographies I linked to. What about them? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think there's any doubt that this album will be released as announced: I just thought I'd mention that, unless I missed it, I haven't seen the official announcement on linked anywhere at all – it's as solid as it gets IMHO, and it's here. I'm not suggesting that's a useful source for WP, just saying. Nortonius (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good find - thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The standing consensus is that, if a name is officially known, then it is listed, if there is no confirmed name, then it's removed. So in the example given, if BlackStar is the official title, then yes, it does belong in the discography section. If BlackStar is to believed to be some sort of tenative name, then it wouldn't go in there, but rather, that would be explained in the history section. But that's usually more if the name is just a rumor, or relatively likely to just be a working title or hashtag or something. (Like if they were just calling it #Album13 or Bowie13 or something like that. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Completely agree. If it was "Upcoming Bowie album" or "2016 album", etc, then that would be an issue. But as it's sourced from his own website with multiple other reports confirming the name and release date, I can't see a valid reason not to include it. And Jan 2016 isn't that far away! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment What I see is multiple editors stating that the inclusion of this album in this discography is acceptable and offering valid criteria for inclusion of the release and offering guidelines for the inclusion of similar work. I also see one editor arguing against it. This appears to be the definition of WP:CONSENSUS and if this were a deletion discussion, WP:SNOWBALL. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Walter. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frankly I think they're idiots. But will grudgingly go along with the concensus. -- (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one cares about your personal attacks on other editors. Beat it, Bradford. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I know how to use an IP location finder too. Well done. -- (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing is that usually if there is enough verifiable information available regarding a forthcoming release, people will create an article ahead of the album's release, and then it looks a little odd not to include it on the discography: you might as well argue that the album article should be deleted as well. Look at the detailed article that already exists for Anti, it would look strange not to include this on Rihanna discography. Richard3120 (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the thing is, that if an article is created about an upcoming album and there's nothing but tweets, Instagram posts, and self-promotional material to support an album article's creation, I have nominated those for deletion. They are often deleted. I checked this album's article, and there is enough there to merit a stub. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, the Bowie album has been reported on the BBC and in various national newspapers and magazines, along with a release date and first single. The Rihanna album is close to being a B-class article, and yet (unlike Bowie) the album still doesn't have a confirmed release date (it's probably going to be within the next four weeks, but no word from her record company so far), so theoretically you could say that it has more chance of being deleted than Blackstar. Richard3120 (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, as much as I try to stick to WP:HAMMER when creating album articles, in actuality, as long as you've got an official name, and 4-5 sources from websites like at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, it's unlikely to get redirected or deleted. The problem that always occurs is that arguments erupt after editors create these lazy "one sentence, one source" articles, where it's less clear that a new article is warranted yet or not. Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Critical Commentary

Please give me examples of "Critical Commentary" as used on wikipedia which would allow album images to be used on a page. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarembo (talkcontribs) 18:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume you are talking about List of The L Word soundtracks? To be honest, that article is quite confused: it says it is a "list" but actually it isn't, it is trying to be an article, or rather five articles combined into one. When Wikipedia talks about "critical commentary" that doesn't mean you should add your own, as you have done here, as that constitutes WP:OR – there should be some cited text or commentary about the albums from other sources. And that brings us to the biggest problem: the article cites no sources, at the moment it's just basically five track listings. If I were you I would worry less about adding the album cover art and concentrate on trying to improve the article with reviews from reliable sources, chart positions, etc. – that's far more important at the moment, otherwise the article is liable to be put up for deletion or merger into the main article about The L Word. Adding links to Discogs, Amazon or iTunes confirming the track listings won't be good enough, I'm afraid. Richard3120 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do we have to credit a song written by a artist known under a stage name / pseudonym ?

Let's take these 3 well known artists as instances as they have been covered many times: Bob Dylan, Prince (musician) and David Bowie.

When they are covered by another act on an album , do we have to include in the credits : possibility 1) real name [Bob Dylan|Robert Allen Zimmerman], [Prince (musician)|Roger Nelson] , [David Bowie|David Robert Jones] or possibility 2) stage name Bob Dylan, Prince, David Bowie.

Certain users want that only their real name is mentioned. I don't share this point of view. If the title of a biography is a stage name, then we have to use the stage name on every Wikipedia article. Woovee (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would think we'd just use their stage names. Partially because most of what we write seems to correlate with WP:COMMONNAME, and partially because, it leads to better recognition/understanding for general audiences. Yes, we can put Wiki-links in, but your average joe reader not only wouldn't recognize the name "Robert Allen Zimmerman", but probably wouldn't care enough to click on the link to investigate it unless the stage name were there. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct. WP:COMMONNAME specifically says to "Use commonly recognizable names", giving in the instances, U2's singer known as Bono (and not as Paul Hewson). Woovee (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Woovee, do you think perhaps that in the case of a pseudonym it should be credited as on the record? For example, for "Manic Monday" I would be inclined to use Christopher as the writer in the infobox and in the track listing, and note (as indeed this particular article does) that "Christopher" is actually Prince under a pseudonym. Richard3120 (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would list in the tracklisting and credits the name credited on the work, with notes about the artist(s)/writer(s) real name(s) if relevant/different from the credited name.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment: I think that I have only seen songwriting credits using real names, as I believe this is the way that they are officially credited. When it comes to Producers stage names are frequently used as that is the way that they are credited. As regards to Prince, I support Richard3120's suggestion because the article clearly explains it.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW "Bob Dylan" is not a stage name but a legally adopted name. 3family6 has got it right. To simply list "Christopher" as the songwriter is misleading if we know it is Prince. Why shouldn't the connection be made in WP? "Prince as Christopher" is fine, truthful and accurate. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be fine with that combined approach too, especially in situations where a compromise between editors is necessary. Just as long as the stage name is present in some capacity - I feel that's important considering the general audiences (not music aficionados) that we write articles for on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many songwriters have indeed used pseudonyms for their credits - "Doc Pomus", "Jackie DeShannon", "Bert Russell", "Jackie Trent", "Nugetre", are some that spring to mind, as well as (obviously) singer songwriters like "Stevie Wonder". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is better to use the pseudonym by which the singer is known: so for a standard cover of Bob Dylan, even if Zimmerman is written on the label, I would think that only Dylan has to be written in the credits.
In the case of an irregular pseudonym, like "Christopher" that "Prince" only used for "Manic Monday", I would also think that saying "Prince as Christopher" is apt.Woovee (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've no problem with that either – I just think that the pseudonym should be mentioned somewhere because somebody looking at the the record or its entry on Discogs will wonder why the writing credit doesn't match that on Wikipedia. Possibly it should say something more like "Christopher (Prince under a pseudonym)" but I'm not that fussed about the wording. Richard3120 (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is an agreement to mention the most famous name of the artist next to an irregular pseudonym.Woovee (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question If someone wants to only put the birth name in the credits of the song instead of including the stage name, do you all agree that it is not relevant ? I have been already reverted for this edit. Can we reach a wp:consensus for the case of "birth name" vs "stage name" in the credits ? Woovee (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Woovee I think you are correct here: the sample in question is from "Happy House" and it's credited on that song to Siouxsie Sioux, not Susan Ballion, so why should the credit on the sample be different from the original song? Richard3120 (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit Actually I've just seen it's a bit more complicated than that, because it is credited to "S. Ballion" on the writing credits for House of Balloons. But then again, Peter Clarke (aka Budgie) wasn't credited as one of the original writers of "Happy House" anyway, so why has the Weeknd now credited all the members of Siouxsie and the Banshees and not just Sioux and Severin? Richard3120 (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a question to you about the Trilogy track listing. Why should the other artists had their real names on that list instead their stage names? Almost all other album articles had their real names instead their stage names. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One has already seen a cover of Bob Dylan sometimes credited under his birth name, and sometimes also credited under his stage name, according to the releases. So... We have to use the most famous name even in the credits. This discussion is not about Trilogy, all the other artists on that article are known under their birth names anyway, bar Abel Tesfaye who is the singer of The Weeknd, (which is why it is relevant to present him like this on Trilogy and only him because it is his record). Woovee (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Our intention at all times is to be helpful to the reader, and to supply information as and where needed and appropriate. We use the name the artist is best known by, as established by reliable sources, though when and where appropriate we give their birth name, or any other name they may be using at the time. If an artist is known by a pseudonym, but writes a song or album under another name - either another pseudonym or their birth name, we would mention that. But we would mention it in way that is clear to the reader. We would never hide their common name behind a piped alternative name, be it their real name or another pseudonym, as this misleads the reader, especially those who print out a page so would not have the benefit of seeing the hidden link. See Wikipedia:Piped link. It would be appropriate and helpful to mention in an article, in running prose and/or track listings, as appropriate, that the artist used a different name to that they are commonly known by. There are several ways of presenting the information in a tracklisting; if it's the artist's own album it could be mentioned in a note at the top of the listing section: "Siouxsie Sioux's songwriting credits are given on the album under her birth name of Susan Ballion"; if the song appears on someone else's album the details could be given in a footnote, or in a parenthetical comment⋅ on the line: "Siouxsie Sioux (Credited to her birth name of Susan Ballion)". SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merely as a PS to Silktork. A "stage name" is a marketing name, and, as such, do not write songs. People write songs. More importantly to the writer (if not the rest of the world), in the case of Siouxsie, the checks/cheques are made out to Susan Ballion. None of this matters to this discussion as listing the writer as Susan Ballion only is distinctly unhelpful.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a PPS - I can think of a fair few songwriters who have used pseudonyms in their careers as songwriters, without ever going near a stage. So, they were not "stage names", or used for marketing - they were to hide their identity, or to show a different identity to the one they used otherwise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We should list whatever name is in the official credits. If it differs from the name of the article from that person, then a pipelink will suffice. We should not list their real name unless they use their real name for crediting purposes. Gamaliel (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured portal candidate: Halo

I have created a new portal at Portal:Halo and nominated it for featured portal status at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Halo. Comments will be much appreciated. Thank you. sst✈discuss 07:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National albums/music charts

Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music charts articles to territory and format rather than official name, so Swedish music charts rather than Sverigetopplistan, etc. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#National Albums/Music Charts. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Just a question... do you think something like Sverigetopplistan really is the WP:COMMONNAME? I suspect the average Wikipedia reader has absolutely no idea what the name of the official Swedish chart provider is (let alone spell it), and is far more likely to search for "Swedish music charts". Besides, the chart provider does change from time to time in most countries – it's recently changed in Germany, and the UK has had BMRB, Gallup and Millward Brown before the current OCC, so you'd have to keep an eye out for any changes: using "xxxx music charts" would avoid that problem. Richard3120 (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have never heard of the chart, but for those who have, it would be the common name. See Sverigetopplistan. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it really the English common name though? Honest question. Not sure which side of this argument I fall on. That name isn't going to be recognizable to the average English reader, but "Swedish music charts" is really more of a description than an actual name, per se... Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know. Is it? I'm not familiar with the chart. If you want a descriptive name, you can always pipe it. For those who don't have the context, I can see that as necessary. For those articles where it's niche, it's probably not necessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, piping may be the best approach, or maybe even making sure they all have comparable redirects like this, so either could be used in other articles, but the article would still go by its actual name. Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: Walter Görlitz - it looks like the actual RFC is located at the other location, so you may want to copy/paste your stance there as to make sure its considered in the discussion's consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm the only one who has commented there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm referring to here. A "control+f" search resulted in zero hits for "Walter", and I'm the only one in the "Oppose" section currently. I believe this is where the core discussion is happening. Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thrash Hits - revisited

Thrash Hits is currently on the list of unreliable publications. The two discussions (here and here), though, to me seem highly inadequate. The site was rejected for 2 reasons that I see: 1. Not reputable and 2. Self-published. Point 2 is false - it isn't (or wasn't, since the site is going defunct) just one person publishing on a blog. Yes, it had only two writers/editors to manage most of the content, but the size of a staff doesn't inherently disqualify a publication, and publications often feature work produced by their editors and publishers. Going through the site, and through mentions elsewhere, there was editorial oversight, and their were other content writers. So, I think the real point here is reputation. The main contributors to Thrash Hits have collaborated with (and this might not be exhaustive: The BBC (here, here, and here), Drowned in Sound, The Guardian, and Clash. In addition, Thrash Hits has been referenced in Metal Injection, AZ Central, The Belfast Telegraph, and The Guardian, and that's just a brief smattering of references I found in a quick g-hits search. Since this publication is a) run through an editorial process, published as a separate entity from the writers themselves; and b) a significant publication; I therefore think that it should be moved from the unreliable source list to the reliable sources list.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Burial Ground"

The usage and primary topic of Burial Ground is under discussion, see talk:Burial Ground (Grave album) -- (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why is AllMusic listed in the "Online Only" section? The older print versions are found in many libraries, and this may discourage some editors from using the print version. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I wasn't aware there was a print version? That may have been why? Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The editor is right, it did start off as a print encyclopaedia. But I don't know how well known or widely available it is - as a Brit I can honestly say I have never seen it in any libraries in the UK, even in London. Richard3120 (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was quite popular in larger bookstores (remember those?) with music sections. My All Music Guide to the Blues has large sections not avaliable on the website. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So yeah, as long as its real and related to the website, then yes, it should definitely be moved out of the "Online Only" section. We already recognize the website as reliable, and usually any publication being published by a third party is going to meet the requirements of an RS anyways, so I don't see any problems. (I've proposed multiple times in the past that we eliminate categorizing them by by online/print anyways - its not like it especially matters - and there's consensus to change it, its just that no one seems up to the task... Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is real and related to the website. The AllMusic article has a reference regarding the "Guide series" section. There is also a referenced WP article on the All Music Guide to Jazz in addition to the All Music Guide to the Blues linked above. There are also guides to Rock, Soul, Country, Classical, etc. If nobody objects, I'll move AllMusic from the "Online only" section to "Online and print". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australian chart list articles

I initially made this request at Talk:List of number-one albums of 2015 (Australia), but was told it would be more appropriate here. I've also made it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#Australian chart list articles.

This is a request for all lists of Australian number-one singles and albums lists to get moved to the same style of title as U.S. and UK ones (i.e. "List of Australian Singles Chart number ones of (year)" and "List of Australian Albums Chart number ones of (year)"). I moved List of number-one albums of 2015 (Australia) myself and then moved it back, because I didn't initially realise that I'd be messing up the template. I realise that some rewriting of the template would have to be done but it's purely for clarity and consistency with the titling of UK and U.S. equivalent article titles. I know the chart hasn't always been called (nor is it technically currently called) the "Australian Albums Chart", but then again the UK Albums Chart is actually called the "Official Albums Chart" nowadays and yet we haven't changed that chart's respective article's titles, and that's partly because it might not instantly strike a reader as being a UK list. That's also the reason why I didn't propose moving to "List of ARIA Albums Chart number ones of 2015" - a reader may not realise that ARIA refers to the Australian charts. Unreal7 (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music

Women in Music
Lyon Mosaïque de la muse Euterpe de la salle Rameau.jpg
Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG
  • 10 to 31 January 2016
  • Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a copy of this record (Ktel's The Best of Bowie) that is different.

I was told it was French when I bought it. The writing on the label is certainly in that language. It has 17 songs instead of 16. On side one the last two tracks are Drive-In Saturday and Sorrow. Young Americans is cut from side two. After Diamond Dogs it has Beauty and the Beast, Breaking Glass, followed by Fame and the rest as listed. Perhaps the change has something to do with the popularity of certain singles over there. (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion regarding terminology of singles

I have started a discussion regarding how Wikipedia should define singles. Please go here to discuss.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would be considered a reliable source? Currently discussing whether to use this ( for the article We Are Harlot (album) but since it's not on the list I believed it to be unreliable, however since it wasn't under any listing I thought I should bring it up here. SilentDan (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for comment

Members may wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Bias against notability of artists from early recordings. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Would AnitMusic be considered reliable? I've seen this used at a number of articles before, and I tried using it myself recently, only for source's reliability to be contested by another editor. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not particularly professional. It's the end of January and the copyright date has not been updated. I would use it with caution. Interviews would be a primary source. I don't know if the reviews should be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Walter Görlitz:: Well, okay. But I would think reviews would be fine in that case, since they are meant as opinion pieces, rather than an undeniable fact. I used this source to try and cite pop punk and emo to an album, but I was reverted because the editor doubted its reliability. The matter ended up in a talk page discussion, and now I've started an RFC there. So, feel free to take a look at this, and give some input to the RFC below: Talk:The Second Stage Turbine Blade#Genres - pop punk, emo, post-hardcore Kokoro20 (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow. The "review" states "in the grossly ballooning pop-punk/emo scene" it does not state that the band is either genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does the site have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? I've come across this site before, too, and I can't answer that question, so I avoid using it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Select magazine

Just to add that Select has been added to the list of reliable sources. it was a published magazine from 1990 to 2000 in the in the United Kingdom. They generally rated things on a five-point scale from 1-5 with no half marks ever. I've started applying their regular square ratings that have been common via this code: . Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh blimey! Thanks, see below (obviously) … JG66 (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


AXS (ticket merchant), a ticket merchant website, is not an appropriate source for professional critiques on a creative work. (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends what it's used for. It should not be used for reviews, but it's fine for basic biographic information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct, it shouldn't be used for an reviews or subjective type content - its hard to think they'd be neutral when they're in the business of selling tickets for said artists - but basic details, like time and places for concerts, would be okay. Is this about a specific dispute? Or are you "just checking"? Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jazz request

Hi Wikipedians!

I don't edit here, but I have a suggestion. I'm a big jazz fan, and I primarily look up jazz albums to see the personnel list. In my experience this is the main subject jazz fans bring up when discussing a jazz album. The identity of the individual side-musicians is very important because jazz is an improvised music and each individual musician makes a big difference to the album. I therefore think it would make sense to include a personnel field in the infobox for small-group jazz albums. I'm sorry I'm not implementing this myself. I just hope some of you find this suggestion useful.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This should be requested at the infobox, {{Infobox album}}, not the project page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, as I don't spend much time in Jazz-album articles, but isn't this sort of things shown pretty well in the track lists and personnel sections of album articles? I'm not necessarily against the proposal, I just know that its pretty easy to look that sort of thing up in the album articles that I personally work on. (See something like Dopamine (Third Eye Blind album) with writing/production credits, or In Defense of the Genre for guest musicians.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not usually listed in the track listings but is in the personnel section. Giant Steps is an example of this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just meant that it could be portrayed in track listing like how they do in most rap or pop albums where they have a ton of writers, producers and collaborators involved. Something like Paperwork_(T.I._album) or Animal (Kesha album). Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

numerals or "block" symbols for Select magazine ratings? (relevant also to Spin, Classic Rock and other titles)

I've just added Select to the list of online & print sources. I can't imagine there'd be any objection to this – it was a well-known EMAP title throughout the 1990s, particularly influential during the Britpop years. Not that our article does the magazine justice right now, but among its contributors, John Harris was editor there for a while, Alexis Petridis was a reviewer before moving on to The Guardian, Davids Cavanagh and Quantick went on to Uncut, and Roy Wilkinson is another familiar name – most recently with Record Collector, I think.

The discussion point is how we should render the block ratings that used to appear in the mag's album reviews. I've seen @Andrzejbanas: adding a new(?) ratings template for albums with Select reviews. This issue is similar to what we were discussing here last year with regard to disc symbols for Fact, No Ripcord and PopMatters (who have since reverted to stars anyway), Ns for Now, Ks for Kerrang! etc. Also, the Select-style blocks are similar to the way Spin, Classic Rock and others present their album ratings. So I guess the question is: are we going with alternative symbols such as blocks, or just using numerals for all non-star/non-letter ratings?

I'll post a link to the previous discussion once I find it, but I think last time around we decided to go with numerals. It doesn't mean we have to now, necessarily. For me at least, it's the same concerns as before: consistency, and ensuring that any alt symbols don't dwarf the existing stars, letters and numerals (not that the blocks look too off on that point, admittedly). JG66 (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to explain the strange order of discussion threads: I'd been busy writing the above but hadn't seen that, while I waffled away, Andrzejbanas had already posted something here on Select ratings. Here are links to the previous discussion(s) I was referring to: December 2014 and September 2015. JG66 (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm, not quite sure about how to tackle this. I'd recently changed a couple of Select ratings across certain album articles I've been following (most of which I'd initially inputted as stars) from stars to numerals since it didn't seem accurate to use stars (complete with the alt text "x/5 stars") when Select themselves never used stars, which the template documentation states explicitly, and based on the December 2014 discussion I'd assumed that consensus was to use numerals for publications which don't use star ratings. I think all of my changes have been converted to the new block format – seems like an accurate workaround (certainly a better fit than star ratings). But then again, I'm not sure how I feel about the precedent this could set up – wouldn't we have to make all sorts of icons ranging from microphones to discs to bones to K's to N's and the like as well? I'd say that some consensus needs to be determined once and for all on how to tackle all non-star image ratings:
  1. Standardizing all image ratings to stars. (Select: )
  2. Being faithful to whatever image the publication used. (Select: )
  3. Using numerals. (Select: 4/5)
Thoughts? Holiday56 (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely no problem using Select as an RS – as noted above, it was EMAP's attempt to create an "alternative music" monthly title after they'd been successful with Q.
Anyway, regarding the rating system, I think we should use a standard rating symbol or numbers across the board, the reason being that different magazines have used different symbols for what is essentially an "...out of 5" rating in all cases. Select wasn't the only magazine to use square black boxes, Record Mirror did as well until its final year, so all its ratings would need to be changed as well. The K rating of Kerrang is well known, but the UK's top dance magazine Mixmag has used both dancing stick figures and more recently headphones to give a rating out of 5... how on earth would we represent this as faithful images? So I think option 2 is a non-starter: we'll have to go with 1 or 3. Richard3120 (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also think option 2 would be too difficult to work with. In addition to to the examples mentioned so far, MusicHound's album guides used bone shapes as ratings; and, for many years, the San Francisco Chronicle used a sort of clap-ometer scale – the more ecstatic-looking the figure, the higher the rating. Also, in one of the past discussions, someone mentioned that these ratings boxes could end up looking kind of tacky, by mirroring a variety of commercial designs. Much as I welcome something visual on the page, I worry that we'll be reflecting the personality of the magazine or online source. (Not only that but what happens when an online source revamps its design – do we shuffle along accordingly each time?) I favour option 3. JG66 (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some more examples of odd rating systems: (1) before it moved to numbers, Spin started out just rating albums on a red/amber/green "traffic light" scale; (2) Melody Maker held out against giving ratings until the last couple of years of its existence. Before moving to ratings out of ten, it briefly used an odd system where most albums would have no rating, a star was used to indicate a "good" album, and a star within a circle indicated "highly recommended" (I forget the actual wording used, I'll have to check). Obviously in this case using the image faithful to the publication would be misleading, because one star in Melody Maker is obviously not the same as a one-star rating in another publication. Richard3120 (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a related subject, some editors may have noticed that Holiday56 has been removing ratings from the ratings box which say "favourable", "average", etc. These are used widely across album articles and at first I was a bit nonplussed, but on reflection I believe he/she is correct to do this, because they aren't explicit ratings given by the reviewer, they are subjective interpretations by Wikipedia editors of the review, and therefore WP:NOR, so I support what Holiday56 is doing. Richard3120 (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, Richard, content fork or what … ;) To backtrack on the "favourable", "average" thing: until 2013, guidelines at the ratings template stated that (from memory) the terms "highly favourable", "favourable", "mixed", "unfavourable", "highly unfavourable" – even "extremely favourable/unfavourable" – were all acceptable. I know this because an editor came to WP The Beatles saying so-and-so had just removed one of these worded/editorialised ratings for Abbey Road and, because I had copied the relevant categories offline shortly before, I replied that this couldn't be right since the template documentation allowed for "favourable", "mixed", etc. Turns out that consensus had just been reached at the template talk page to abandon these terms and go only with recognised scores and ratings, but without any notification being given beforehand at Albums or Music project pages. My take: Pretty ***in' poor really, when you consider that only those who happened to be watching the talk page got to participate in making an encyclopaedia-wide decision. (And I'm not too disappointed to see that album articles continue to make GA carrying "favourable" etc in the ratings box. I mean, how's anyone to know unless they've seen the rule policed, when they weren't invited to contribute?)
A wider discussion might have shown, firstly, that insisting on only scores and ratings often presents an unbalanced picture. Reason being that, while an album from the early 2000s received attention at Metacritic, that was an era when reviews from Mojo, Record Collector, BBC Music, PopMatters and others hadn't adopted formal ratings systems – meaning that we can be presenting a false picture in a ratings box by excluding them. And secondly, especially in the case of older, "classic" albums, many secondary sources do actually highlight individual album reviews as having been particularly positive, negative, or average/mixed (meaning that text in an article's Reception section can demonstrate it's not OR).
I'm not saying Holiday56 or you are wrong at all, but you raised the point and I think some clarification is needed. The decision was extremely short-sighted and made on the quiet, without any regard for collaboration. So personally, I take an as-and-when approach: I'll search out reviews with scores and ratings, but I'm not going to blindly remove any editorialisation from ratings boxes when I can see that it might present a falsely positive or negative picture of how an album has been received. Particularly when there are secondary sources that contradict the picture that we're forced to present in a ratings box.
The thing I really like about dropping into discussions here is that it's open and we do discuss issues that are raised. That was not the case with the removal of editorialised ratings, but hopefully we can take this Select addition and solve a wider issue that's been up and down since late 2014.
Okay, I'm done now … JG66 (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rationale cited above by Richard is more or less spot-on with why I've been doing this, in addition to the fact that I find that these non-scored descriptions don't have much logical place in a box specifically labeled "review scores". It's something more or less mainly prevalent in older album articles, where ratings weren't as common, and in most cases where I take these descriptions out of boxes I've tried to incorporate the reviews into the prose instead. I'm not really going about the changes on a full-scale basis, mainly for the select batch of album articles I follow; I'd seen several instances of other users doing the same so I kinda assumed that they were gradually being phased out and consensus had long been reached. If a wider-scale discussion on this topic should ever come about again I'd be happy to participate. Holiday56 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah look, I certainly wasn't trying to give you (or anyone imposing the current rule) a hard time. And I take your point that there's a lack of congruity between a label reading "review scores" and then finding a term such as "favourable". I was talking about possibly rare instances where, say, an album from the late '90s or early '00s can have a high overall score at Metacritic but many of the most favourable reviews end up being excluded from the ratings box because the reviewers didn't use formal ratings at the time. (Or conversely, perhaps the album has a low overall rating and it's some of the least favourable reviews that don't qualify – whatever.) Of course those reviews can still be represented in prose, great, but the ratings box itself presents a biased picture. I guess the answer would be to remove the ratings box in such instances. But it's pretty silly, because the fact that Metacritic attributes scores of 80 or 90 to these reviews removes any suggestion that there's OR in our terming them "highly favourable", surely. Same with older albums when there are biographers and other secondary sources who highlight certain reviews as having been particularly laudatory, mixed or downright murderous – there's no question of OR. JG66 (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Either way, going back to the topic of non-star ratings; I'd rule out option 2 for the reasons already outlined by others above, and I've stated my case on a full-scale implementation of stars for everything not being a wholly accurate form of representation. At the very least using numerals would constitute being generic enough to represent any score expressed in a numerical scale, regardless of the image, so I'd say option 3 would be the best. Holiday56 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah! So much for my blockscapade I had yesterday night. No worries. I'm happy with either. My only other suggestion would be how to interpret Robert Christgau's rating as his symbols will definately be obvious to the average reader as they are not very clear. Would the average user know what his pair of scissors or giant N mean? Or that his ratings are out of three stars? I think that would need a revamp. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes - what about Robert Christgau? I agree that we should try to stick to a standard for reviews, but the use of squares seems to be/have been fairly commonplace as an alternative to stars - Cross Rhythms also uses them. If several publications use this same system, could we not consider it an alternative standard to stars? It's not like that would be opening the floodgates for using any weird rating system - an editor would have to prove that the rating system is commonplace, not just particular to that publication, or else extremely influential (cf. Robert Christgau).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per my above response, I'm proposing option 4: 4. Use an alternative rating system if it is highly prevalent across multiple publications (in particular, squares)--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the options given, I'd support 1 and 3. Whichever way ratings/scores are presented, it should be standardized. Having different shapes, colors and sizes in the ratings box is not useful for the reader, and gives unintended undue weight to the most conspicuous ones, e.g., here, here, and here. I'd use only letters and stars, or letters and numbers. If there aren't sufficient sources with ratings, then I find "favorable" and "unfavorable" to be useful, depending on the Metacritic scores. Lapadite (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This site as a relatively large crew, some either being former or current university students (as seen here) and has been mentioned by the likes of this be classed as a reliable source or does this evidence not suffice? - SilentDan (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm leaning towards no as it generally just seems to be a fan site for the genre. Most users don't seem to have much connection to published music sources and even just go by aliases such as " ProgHippie" and so forth. It'd probably be tagged as self-published. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, this is where I was leaning too. While not hard rules, "following only a very specific type of music" and "writing under pseudonyms" are usually tell-tale signs of being a fansite or self-published website... Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "like" in titles such as Fly Like an Eagle, "Smells Like Teen Spirit", and "Moves like Jagger". Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 16:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Title formatting

I was going to create a page on Max Richter's album recomposition of Vivaldi's The Four Seasons. However, I'm not sure what the title should be. The title described on the artist's wiki page in prose is "Recomposed by Max Richter: Vivaldi's Four Seasons" while other official pages list the title as "Recomposed By Max Richter: Vivaldi, The Four Seasons" or "Recomposed By Max Richter: Vivaldi: The Four Seasons" or even "Recomposed By Max Richter - Vivaldi: The Four Seasons." Which one is standard/relevant formatting for Wikipedia? Sorry if this is basic, I'm new here. Oneclicklogin (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Oneclicklogin - that's a good question. This might sound slightly strange, but the exact title of the article is not that important (see WP:TITLE for the proper guidelines). Go ahead and boldly create the article under whichever title you think is the best (personally, I'd go for something like Recomposed By Max Richter - Vivaldi: The Four Seasons) - if other editors disagree, then they will either discuss it or move it, which won't really be any problem. Good luck :) — sparklism hey! 07:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clutch (band and their albums)


For the life of me I cannot fathom why the album 'Strange Cousins at the Prince' (which I have created and due to this, Clutch are under AfD reviews, in various albums - go figure) will not link backwards to the previous album 'Strange Cousins from the West', when the said previous album will link forwards to the one I've created, and it will link forwards to the next album in the tree???? I have double check everything I can think of and it will not work.....Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See this edit, which has resolved the problem. It wasn't quite linking to the exact title, which doesn't have a capital 'F'. :) — sparklism hey! 11:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks man, don't now how that got missed...Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone check if the article meets the criteria to be classified as b-class, especially grammatically and syntactically? I made it and gave it c-class, because I thought it was enough, but I see it might be even b-class according to the assessment site. If it is not even close to be b-class, please just leave a short note here :) Tashi Talk to me 13:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Editors may be interested in joining the discussion at this RFC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Choba B CCCP

Back in the USSR album is requested to be renamed, see Talk:Choba B CCCP -- (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MetroLyrics songwriters miscredits

A discussion has been started at the WP:External links noticeboard regarding miscrediting songwriters often found in external links to song lyrics on MetroLyrics. Please add your comments at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#MetroLyrics songwriters miscredits. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to comment on a request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: should the artist name be included in the titles of articles about songs and albums when other songs or albums of the same name exist, but do not have standalone articles? Thanks. sst✈ 15:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Music Times

I've seen this source used for reviews of many song articles, but I'm not quite sure if it's a quality source? Could someone please clarify? Here is a link for one their recent reviews. Thanks. Abi-Maria (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's reliable for sure, I've used it myself. I thought it was already listed, but apparently it wasn't, so I'll add it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, if you look at their About Us page, you can see that they've got an established staff of editors and writers, with history as writers, experience in the industry, college educated about writing, etc. I didn't see anything concerning in my quick look through it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has this project ever organized a blitz/contest to tackle administrative tasks, such as reducing Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover or similar? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Times and FHM

Is there a reason the music reviews from the U.K broadsheet daily, The Times, are excluded from the list of RS ? Also is the U.K monthly megazine FHM an RS? Another one is the U.K monthly magazine Classic Rock. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not familiar with the first two, but are they specifically music websites? The list only lists music-focused sources - the list would balloon out to a massive size if we added every general source out there that might do a music review. The last one, Classic Rock Magazine, could almost certainly be put on there if its a hard copy, paper-printed magazine, as usually what it takes to create such a publication puts it into RS territory. If it's not...then feel free to create a case for its inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Times is a big broadsheet national newspaper with an entertainment section with music reviews and features once or twice a week (Fridays and some Saturdays),and the website is firstly news but it does have an entertainment section. It is considered to be an RS for wikipedia. There is also The Sunday Times that has music features/ reviews.In the U.K. , The Times is considered on a par with The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent which are featured on the list so I wondered why it was left out. There is a problem that its archive is behind an expensive paywall.
Classic Rock is a hard copy, paper printed, monthly music magazine widely available in supermarkets and newsagents throughout the U.K . It is highend quality full of features and reviews , similar in size to Mojo and quite expensive , about £4.50 to a £5, I,m not sure about FHM as it used to be a men's magazine but it seems more music focussed, going by its cover , it is sealed so I'll have to buy a copy and look at its music coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With that information at hand, I have no objection to adding Classic Rock Magazine, but I wouldn't really add any of the others on there. If we keep adding every general website/newspaper/publication that does music reviews as a division of their work, the list is going to become hundreds and hundreds of entries long. But even if its not on the list, you're still probably fine with using it. Most bigger publications/newspapers like The Washington Post or The New York Times or the ones you listed are probably going to be considered reliable, and you're going to have a hard time finding someone posing a valid reason to consider them unreliable. The list isn't a "if its not on there, its not reliable" situation, its more like "if you do use one of these, you should be fine" situation. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Classic Rock is already on the list, btw. I added it a year or two back. JG66 (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll use the Times review then , will check out FHM but its probably not up to the standard of Classic Rock. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no problem with FHM, as it is a reliable print and online source, and The Times is one of the most influential papers in history, so I don't see why we shouldn't link to its "Arts" section in the listing. I will add both.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reverted your addition - did you not read the whole discussion? Because there was not consensus to add all of those. If they're music-based, I have no problem with adding them, but there's no reason to start listing off every major new publication as reliable. Like I was saying, there's no reason to think anyone would doubt the reliability of huge, mainstream publications, it's not really helping. The list is going to get really overwhelming if we keep adding all these generic websites/newspapers on there... Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I did this edit because several general publications were already listed, which was mentioned in the above discussion. I just went ahead and removed all of those, barring a few that are handy for music traditions outside of the US/Canada and Europe.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also FYI, Classic Rock is already listed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies, I'm late to this discussion, having been away from Wikipedia for a while, but as a Brit, I would say Sergecross73 that The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent (recently closed as a print publication but which continues online) are all respected national broadsheet newspapers which employ dedicated music journalists for their reviews, so I would say they are definitely reliable sources. Classic Rock is also a widely available music magazine specialising in, er, classic rock and I see no problem with using it. However, as Atlantic306 says above, FHM is a men's magazine (a bit like a downmarket GQ) and I don't know if they employ music writers or if their reviewers are simply the journalists employed to write the rest of the magazine's articles, so I would maybe avoid using this as an RS. Richard3120 (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I don't object to using any of the sources listed here, they all seem reliable, I'm just trying to keep the general websites off of it because, if people start listing every general publication that does music reviews, this list is going to get massive. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foreign Sources

I think it would be very useful to have a list of foreign language music reliable sources, for articles on non-english albums.Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a nice idea, but it's just that most editors on the English language Wikipedia are American or British, and tend to only be familiar with reliable publications in their own countries. Added to this is that editors have to be able to speak another language to be able to translate and use an interview or album review from foreign magazines in the English Wikipedia. Plus, if you live in the US or the UK, it's almost impossible to get hold of those foreign publications in those countries. So overall it's difficult to make a list of foreign music sources that could be used on this Wikipedia, and it certainly wouldn't be a definitive list. Having lived in Germany and knowing a bit about the music press there, I could easily argue for example that the music magazine MusikExpress (formerly MusikExpress Sounds) is certainly as reliable as Rolling Stone or NME and could be considered an RS, but actually being able to have access to it and use it is another matter. Richard3120 (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are already some foreign-language sources list on the source list. If anyone knows any more, why shouldn't they be added?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3family6, I think that would be great, if we could get agreement on certain publications and then have editors who could access them – as far as I can see there are only two foreign language publications on that entire list, both in German. The famous French magazine Les Inrockuptibles springs to mind, as well as the aforementioned German publication Musikexpress – it's been going since 1969 and is published by Springer Verlag, who also publish Metal Hammer and the German edition of Rolling Stone. It has an extensive archive online too, although it's subscription only... shame, as it would be interesting to see why it gave such a lukewarm review back in 1977 to Trans Europe Express by legendary German band Kraftwerk, for example. Richard3120 (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BBC 6 Music Classic Albums

Just a heads-up that BBC 6 Music have made a batch of old episodes of the Classic Albums series available to listen to on their website at – these are one-hour documentaries, originally broadcast on BBC Radio 1 in the late 80s/early 90s, on classic albums of the 1960s to 1980s, with a key member of the band discussing the album track by track, albeit not in any great depth... might be useful for editors working on those albums to pick up information about certain tracks and other bits and pieces. I'm thinking the likes of Ritchie333, JG66 and Dan56 among others may have an interest. They don't stay there for ever, though – Pet Sounds with commentary by Brian Wilson only has seven days left to run, for example, so pinging ilovetopaint. I can almost certainly get hold of the original broadcast dates if anybody needs them. Richard3120 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Richard, very thoughtful of you. I'll be sure to check them out … JG66 (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Billboard archives

User:Toa Nidhiki05 found a site that has archives of most Billboard issues from 1938 until 2010.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just as a side, I would suggest we work as hard as possible to archive each and every one of these, in case these ever get taken down. These are invaluable for anyone interested in popular music since pretty much ever. Toa Nidhiki05 02:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh wow, this is fantastic... a lot of US year-end charts that used to be on had disappeared and the only web archive was from a blacklisted archive site – I now have a reference for those charts missing from Billboard own incomplete archives website, even if we can't link to them directly. Thank you Toa Nidhiki05 for finding these. Richard3120 (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I started using this site quite recently too. They've also got (badly!) scanned issues of High Fidelity magazine through to the early '70s, which I've found useful for contemporary album reviews. JG66 (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Solid Gold! Nuro msg me 04:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Body of Work (album)

I don't want to rehash the various cross-references I have put between the pages. I listed Body of Work at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 15 as maybe having a better retarget; Body of Work (album) I said could possibly move over; another user has now prodded that who is the same user who moved it over in if I recall correctly July 2015 (somewhere mid Jul 2015, the links you can follow from there) saying "WP:DABSONG may way for much more likely titles" (not "make way", not my typo), I have no idea but it seems odd to PROD something a day after it has come up at a discussion, even though it is not technically part of the RfD. I don't know if the album is noteworthy or not or don't care, but now we have four discussions going out of one user's redirects (there's another at Talk:Oeuvre (disambiguation) for my requested move which was put as a procedural close at RfD after this user's arguing about it being wrong forum--- this seems not so much forum chasing as forum escaping by this user to me, so please excuse me not giving the full story but I am sure you can follow it up from those two with all the links I have at both (histories and stuff).

The main thing is it wasn't listed here and either it is a notable album or it isn't. Si Trew (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Print liner notes as sources

In many physical albums there are text that describes who did what on the album (who wrote the lyrics, descibes performers, who mastered it et.c.) are those considered reliable sources or not? An editor claims that if a release is on Discogs then the liner notes are not reliable as Discogs is considered to not be reliable. // Liftarn (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Odd circular log, but as you suspect, it's not true. I see you have posted at WP:RSN as well. Since community-generated content is not reliable, that means that is not considered a reliable source. The liner notes from which its content is gleaned is a reliable WP:PRIMARY source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this was what I was going to answer as well. Discogs is not usable because it violates WP:USERG. Album liner notes are reliable and usable, but in the same capacity that we'd treat any source that is both first party (bare objective details, not subjective claims) and a printed/book source (they're usable, but it'd be nice if editors could point to verifiable proof of sorts if the claim is controversial.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been using liner notes as sources in many articles, they're pretty useful for correctly providing the credits for each song and the personnel involved. Can't say I'm a big fan of using a source that's not as easily verifiable as a website, but it's still better than nothing. Victão Lopes Fala! 15:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I believe I have too, especially for bands like Filter (band), Smashing Pumpkins, or A Perfect Circle, where they have a lot of changing lineups. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Album liner notes & LP labels are often more reliable than secondary sources for running times, dates, song writers, personnel, etc. Obtaining this information from a Discog image that clearly shows it should be acceptable. Providing a link in Template:Cite AV media notes could show where the info came from and adding a note that only the image was used could help with verifiability. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd always thought liner notes were considered an RS as we have Template:Cite AV media notes specifically to quote them, seems a bit pointless having a dedicated template if it's not considered reliable. One area that might need investigation is when the writing credits on an album's liner notes don't match those on the ASCAP or other countries' songwriter databases that pay out the songwriting royalties – I've seen arguments about this on some song and album articles, particularly those related to boy bands and girl groups. I'm guessing the liner notes take priority as they're easier to source, but still, you would think ASCAP who actually pay the songwriters would be the last word on the matter. Richard3120 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ASCAP, BMI, etc. handle performance rights. In the US, this is distinct from copyrights. So, to say that ASCAP is authoritative is not actually the case. Performance rights organisation, Copyright collective, and Copyright agency should shed more murk on the subject. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ojorojo:. Not sure I agree with you here. BMI/ASCAP do contain disclaimers, but they are professional organisations that sends the cash out according to their records! There would be uproar if they got it wrong. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BMI, etc. collect and distribute money for performance rights in public places, which is a fraction of the total income generated by songs. Compositions are registered with them and they are not in a position of determining copyrights. If there is a conflict, it must be addressed by the parties through the legal system, which for many is not cost effective. As an example, all Blind Willie Johnson songs are registered with BMI,[1] but there is no record that he ever filed for the copyrights. So what he actually "wrote" as opposed to "borrowed" in the folk music tradition cannot be determined by the BMI registration. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We now come down to the basic problem. Who actually wrote the song? Who was in the room at the time and who is giving the evidence. In the case of old blues musicians, they were often paid for the recording and the owner of the studio/label claimed performance rights. Non-commercial (i.e. folk) music was always a little lax about who owned copyrights. Nonetheless, what is written on the application form registration for PRO registration is a legal document, signed by the writers that states who the writers are. We are not in a position to "decide" which version of events is correct. We should, however, point out discrepancies without opinion. FWIW, It has been much clearer since Blind Willie Johnson, save that now we have one or two writers in a band but the whole band gets songwriter credits - this is a straight forward business arrangement. But WP needs to list each member of the band. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, ASCAP/BMI information is only as good as what the applicant supplies. Their registry isn't proof that the person wrote the song or holds the copyright, so their value as a source should be seen in this context. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, for songwriters, the PROs are probably the best (and only) reliable source. Whether it's complete and/or accurate for performers is another issue. Certainly incomplete. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've come across a number of PRO miscredits. Well-researched musician biographies and reference-quality books on various music topics are probably more reliable sources. The problem with PRO information is that it is self-serving, i.e. the applicant (who supplies the information) is usually the financial beneficiary. Writers were pointing out that several Led Zeppelin songs (duly credited to them at ASCAP) borrowed heavily years before ASCAP was updated because LZ lost their infringement lawsuits. I guess we'll have to disagree. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be interested in seeing those mistakes. Where a song has moved to public domain, you can claim credit as arranger (check out something like "Ave Maria" if you don't believe me), which muddies the waters. Otherwise, the only evidence we really have that somebody has written a song is because they claim they have - whether at a PRO, or to record company or elsewhere. Again, as I said before, if there are discrepancies we should point it out, not rule which is correct. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sonny Boy Williamson II is an interesting example. BMI lists 224 songwriter titles for "Williamson Sonny Boy" (they put last name first)[2]. However, there were two Sonny Boy Williamsons, commonly differentiated as Sonny Boy Williamson I & Sonny Boy Williamson II. The same 224 titles are also listed under "Miller Rice"[3], "Williamson Willie"[4], and "Williamson Willie Sonny Boy"[5], names which SBWII also used. So BMI shows SBWII as the songwriter for 224 titles. However, a very quick look through the titles shows at least 25 titles that SBWII never recorded and were in fact recorded by John Lee Williamson (Sonny Boy Williamson I) well before SBWII began his recording career. BMI has a listing for "Williamson John Lee", but it doesn't show any titles[6]. SBWI was one of the most recorded pre-WWII Chicago blues artists and was signed to a major label, RCA subsidiary Bluebird. SBWII probably never recorded many more of the titles listed by BMI and biographies don't mention that SBWII wrote a lot of songs that he never recorded or that SBWI recorded a lot of them. BMI should be experienced at dealing with artists with the same or similar names, so this shouldn't be an excuse. There are many examples of multiple BMI Work #s assigned to the same song, but under different songwriter names (not as "artists" – those listings are very sketchy). PRO listings shouldn't be used as the basis for an argument about the author of a song without some other confirmation. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, interesting, but there are some unusual items in here. For instance, SBW1 made some of the recordings before BMI was established and, generally speaking, copyrights are generally under the legal name of the songwriter, not the stage name which suggests something done in a rush. But as I alluded to earlier, I wouldn't rely on either PRO for "folk songs" and I included, if not voiced, blues songs. I still say for anybody from Johnny Mercer to Stefani Germanotta the PROs are the place to go for songwriting credits. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that, I didn't know that – gives me some ammunition when I see that argument break out again eslsewhere. :-) Richard3120 (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Side question: I sometimes, if a Discog antry is complete, use Discogs if I cannot access the liner notes myself. I don't entirely like doing this, but how else am I supposed to access complete liner notes if I do not own a physical copy of the album?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discog entries are probably are probably no more accurate than those at[7] or other user generated sites. Actual images should be reliable – a Google image search may turn up some readable album cover notes. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that would be pretty much the same. I always try to use the actual liner notes, or an image of them, but there are times I've resorted to Discogs because I couldn't find the actual notes online.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK so now, as I've just read it, we are using images from Discogs? Always been rebuffed by other editors who don't regard it as a reliable form of source material. Though I've never uploaded an Image as an Attachment to an article either....
Nürö G'däÿ 00:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any why would we not use a direct image of a label or jacket? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm wondering in what way would we use such an image. Certainly not to have all over the article as proof of a cite? Or is there some Wikilink to a data retention centre that I'm unaware of to do so?
Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 05:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I understand you correctly, you think that we are suggesting that the image is to be added to the article as a reference. If that's correct, then your understanding is deeply flawed. The image would be at, not here and we would link to their website as a RS.
If I don't understand you correctly, you'll have to explain what you're thinking, because I clearly do not understand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
HAHA...Sorry, I didn't convey myself well at all. You've answered my query very well though, and yes it is blindly obvious really isn't it..thank you.
Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 05:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion on auto-assessment of articles

See this discussion, which suggests a bot task that would auto-assess some articles for WikiProjects based on other WikiProject templates on the page. Please feel free to comment on the discussion. It would be helpful to know if your WikiProject would be interested in auto-assessment. ~ RobTalk 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Romanza and other Bocelli albums Pop music?

Hi, i see that Romanza's infobox includes pop music under genre. is this right? the wikiarticle states pop music as "Pop music is a genre of popular music that originated in its modern form in the Western world during the 1950s and 1960s, deriving from rock and roll. The terms "popular music" and "pop music" are often used interchangeably, although the former describes all music that is popular (and can include any style)." Shouldn't Bocelli's albums be characterised as Popular music instead? just wondering.....Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'd think that classical crossover or operatic pop would be a better description of Bocelli's work. But I steer clear of genre editing myself, it tends to open up a whole can of worms. Richard3120 (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC regarding article titles for soundtracks

Should the title for a soundtrack article be "<name of release> (soundtrack)" even if a more accurate, albeit longer title in the form of "<name of release>: Original <whatever> Soundtrack" exists? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack don't mention anything specific. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have an example? Perhaps this questions comes from a specific dispute? Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The basic principle of WP:Article titles is to use the form found in RS, which would presumably usually mean the official title.Martinlc (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, I agree with Martinlc after briefly reading over WP:Article titles. Also, there's sometimes soundtracks that come out with similar names (the soundtrack to the lion king, the movie, vs. the soundtrack to the lion king, the musical). Having a longer name can help distinguish between the two. Recruited by the feedback request service -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 07:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the reason "xxxx (soundtrack)" is often preferred is because the official titles can get pretty long and unwieldy sometimes: see Madonna's I'm Breathless, for example, where the article title doesn't include "Music from and Inspired by the Film Dick Tracy". But to take two of the biggest-selling movie soundtracks of all time, we clearly have a difference of opinion as to whether a title should be Saturday Night Fever (soundtrack) (as the common name) or Grease: The Original Soundtrack from the Motion Picture (as the official title), and clearly some guidance is needed as to which of the two options is preferred. Richard3120 (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Follow RS People are going to go by what they've heard the title to be. Or, more likely, they're going to look for the movie's article first and then the soundtrack's article, because they know that in a database of information like this, the two topics are more than likely going to be tied to each other this way. I've also seen on certain promo releases that the album overall doesn't seem to have an official title; the spine reads one thing, the back reads another, and the front gives you no clues as to which of potentially three different choices is correct. At worst, people don't really care, and at best, what the sources say when they speak about it would be the most logical as it would be recognizable. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although not an absolute be-all-and-end-all law, the solution exists in a mix of procedures; use redirects to establish the various forms as they arise, then discuss which should be the target on the talk page (of one to avoid MULTI) and if no agreement can be reached, take it to DR. Eventually, the correct title will be established. fredgandt 08:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop classifying mainstream (popular) albums as Top-importance

Importance should be based on integrity to the encyclopedia, not necessarily based on cultural importance of the album. (Which is subjective) (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's hard to tell exactly what you're talking about without any examples, but the entire premise of "importance" would be a subjective call no matter what, so I don't know how you'd plan on changing this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see the point either. It's a completely subjective point of view. 'Mainstream' to me means 'Commercial crap', that has no talent or artistic value, and is purely for 'Company profits' from the 'masses', irrelevant of any 'Chart' success, which I also consider to be completely false and inaccurate to any Bands actual popularity. You'll need to be more specific than this. Nuro msg me 20:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And popularity doesn't equate importance, either. Reliable sources is the best gauge, in my opinion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with 3family6 – most of the classification of albums was done years ago when Wikipedia was first starting, and whoever did it back then obviously had their own views of what the "top importance" albums were... generally the more likely an album is to appear on a "critics' 100 best albums of all time" or the Rolling Stone 500 Best Albums list, the more likely it is to be considered a top or high importance album. Last year I went through the categories and found a lot of records placed in the top categories that clearly weren't top importance, put there by fans (they included a self-produced limited edition EP by a West Coast hardcore band).
Unfortunately, whatever your view on big-selling commercial records, there's usually going to be far more information and reliable sources available for them than for an underground band, so the commercial hits tend to gain higher importance and more chance of becoming GA or FA. But yeah, it's a pretty irrelevant rating really. Richard3120 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the best way to determine importance would be, through reliable sources, demonstrating the impact a recording or artist has had on the market, in a particular genre, and/or on other artists. For instance, without Pet Sounds The Beatles wouldn't have been inspired to write Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fairly sure that the ratings are a bit askew, but I'm not sure that RSes can always be used to verify the high importance of an album. How many (or what percentage) of write-ups should be considered? What sort of vetting of authors should be done? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The trouble with these source-based classifications of importance is that the importance tagging is done before any substantial research. I would suggest a simple criterion such as "included on Rolling Stone Top 500 albums list".Martinlc (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coincidentally, I was thinking about this again today and also thought about using the RS 500 list at least as a starting point. But of course it gets revised periodically and new albums get included and others drop off the list. The list also includes a fair number of greatest hits and "various artists" albums, which by their nature are almost impossible to get to GA status... no background to speak of, song composition is already covered on the articles for the albums on which the songs originally appeared, and few critical reviews as everybody already knows the songs (and critics tend to use reviews of greatest hits albums as an opportunity to gush over/vent their spleen on the artist, depending on whether they like the act or not, so it's rarely a balanced critique of the songs themselves). For example, I've worked on Singles Going Steady, one of the 500 records on the RS list, but with the all the above factors plus the fact it's never charted anywhere in the world, it'll be a struggle to get this article any further than C-class, so should it really be considered top or high importance? Richard3120 (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the Latin music project importance scale, there has to be several sources by music critics that declare a recording as influential or essential Latin song for it to be high-importance. I shamefully copied was influenced by how the Christian music project also has their importance scale as well. Erick (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But to return to the initial question, the Importance rating is solely used behind the scenes to indicate priorities for improvement of the encyclopedia. A Top importance article is one which a wikipedia user would expect to find a fairly full entry for. We aren't giving out awards for influence or quality of the album. If we expand the selection then it ceases its utility as a way of prioritising our work.Martinlc (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It has been discussed at RSN in both its current name, MusicMight and former, Rockdetector. It appears to be user-generated, and claims that some content can be removed by the person who runs the site. Shall we add it to the sources to avoid? Its content spawns books, which I assume are reliable, but how do we judge the individual band pages? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I understand from past discussions, MusicMight is reliable if the content was written by Garry Sharpe-Young (user Taniwha), who was a published author. Most, if not all, of the content Sharpe-Young created was collated from previously published material of his. The site was originally a project of his, but later on started taking volunteers.I don't know what kind of registration process was involved, and if there was any oversight of the volunteers. So, unless the content is attributable to Taniwha (and I'd say Taniwha alone), it should probably be avoided. The site is defunct since 2010, so there's no real way to even contact it to get more information (I know because I tried).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the addition I reverted and that started me digging.
Do you have any suggestions on how to encapsulate your comment on the project page? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd list it on both the reliable and unreliable site listings (like Metal Storm is). On the reliable list, I'd place a note saying "only use content attributed to Garry Sharpe-Young (user name Taniwha)." On the unreliable list, put a note saying "All content not attributed to user Taniwha is unreliable."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed deletion of Red (John Stevens album)

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Red (John Stevens album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to be notable. The only significant independent coverage of the album I can find is here, which isn't enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. And at any rate,'s utility for establishing notability is debatable.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, I've already declined the PROD - there's an in-depth source present in the article, and the album appears to have charted, so, if its not notable, I think this would at least require an AFD discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems a case where merging with the artist entry makes sense. Martinlc (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm a bit confused on this, so I want to make sure, does "composer" refer to the songwriters or just the people who made the music? That's the only credit for the songs. I'm talking about Tini (Martina Stoessel album). – nyuszika7h (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's those credited as songwriters, not performers.Martinlc (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Martinlc: I was not talking about performers. There are also fields for lyrics/music writers in the {{Track listing}} template. So if only "Composer" is listed, should I use |writer= or the |music= field? nyuszika7h (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It depends what reliable sources say. MTV and later iTunes decided to change the term "songwriter" to "composer". Traditionally, a composer wrote the music and a librettist wrote the words to a story such as an opera or cantata and a lyricist wrote the words to a song. When it comes to pop music, you generally had composers and lyricists. Eventually in the fifties, musicians who did both became known as songwriters. So again, if the sources say that we have composers, that's what we have, but I lament the lack of precision. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Igloo Magazine

Any feedback on whether is a reliable source or worth adding to the list? I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 13:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here. It has been more than two weeks and I had little feedback, so I thought I would post a notice. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO it has enough content and one in depth RS to remain as a standalone article. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took the liberty to copy your comment at Talk:Leslie_Odom,_Jr.#Merge_proposal, since that is where the discussion takes place. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guardian partner sites

If a music review/blog site is partnered with the Guardian, would that make it a reliable source for reviews and/or news? I'm asking because the Guardian partnered with Seoulbeats in 2013[8] and want to make sure it's okay to use it. Random86 (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Certification Table

Should Template:Certification Table Top have a column for the certification date? Some of the albums on the RIAA's list of top-selling albums have certifications that are 10 to 15 years, even 20 years old. Other popular albums haven't been certified since their initial shipments in the 1970s and 1980s. A date would give the reader a better sense of what the certification level represents. Piriczki (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I'd welcome that. I've come across examples where the RIAA (gold) certification is still from an album's initial shipment in the '70s, as you say, yet a decade or more after release, Billboard was reporting sales that easily qualified the album for platinum certification. So it would be useful to include the date – because, at least as I understand it, the practice always used to be (still is?) that the RIAA would track US sales/shipments for gold accreditation, but for sales beyond that level, an artist or record company would have to request a dedicated audit, which not all did. JG66 (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Presumably this is because multi-platinum awards weren't introduced until 1984, so many albums released before then stuck with the single platinum certification? Personally I'm still waiting for RIAA's website to acknowledge their error in not recognising that certification levels for singles before January 1989 were twice what they are now, so all their sales levels for singles certified before that date are wrong... Richard3120 (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]