Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 65

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68

Peaks again

It would be missleading to add new peaks only if it states "2021 weekly chart performance for" - and then lower peaks would became redundant. I know there would be problem to include 50 years of peaks for some Christmas hits. @Lk95: Eurohunter (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not quite sure what you're trying to get at here but I removed the 2022 positions in favor of the peaks it had already reached in 2021 as we don't document chart positions for each year; with the exception of a few Christmas songs or songs that regained popularity long after they peaked. None of this applies here. We can only extend the time bracket to 2022. Lk95 (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lk95: Eurohunter is referring to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 64#Weekly charts. Richard3120 (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, I second Lk95's reasoning here. The 2022 charts aren't particularly notable unless the song climbs back up suddenly or even overtakes its previous record, and since no such thing has happened so far in its chart run there's no need for a second whole table to document non-notable chart presence. QuietHere (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why is metacritic being used as WP:RS when its score is based on WP:UGC though its weight is much lower. Sikonmina (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MC has two scores: the User Score and the Metascore. The former is USERG, but the latter is from collected scores by critics from professional publications. If anyone's using the former then that's worth calling into question, but I'm not aware of any problems with the latter. QuietHere (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is correct. It gives 2 scores - one user-generated, one not. We don't use the user generated one, but we do use the professional one. This is standard across multiple content areas - the video game and film Wikiprojects have similar stances. Sergecross73 msg me 12:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Depreciate Sputnikmusic

Isn't Sputnikmusic WP:UGC? Why is it considered reliable? Sikonmina (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per its entry at WP:RSMUSIC, we only use reviews which are tagged as either "staff" or "emeritus". Anything else would fall under USERG, but those should be fine (unless you know something the participants in this 2017 discussion don't). QuietHere (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've only looked at the archive so I haven't looked at the history, but the participants haven't provided any proof of the reliability/credibility of the reviewer stratification. I would err on the side of caution and depreciate sputnikmusic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikonmina (talkcontribs) 08:16, January 19, 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't accept "err on the side of caution" in this case, and I have a feeling I'm not alone in that. You're gonna have to provide evidence as to the unreliability of the site and gather a consensus in favor of deprecation before it can happen. You're the first person I can remember having an objection to Sputnikmusic in the time I've been active in this WikiProject so something tells me that's not gonna be so easy, but don't let me be the one to stop you if you've got something to share. QuietHere (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sikonmina - given the feedback you've been getting about your album blanking since this new 10 Sept 2021 account started, perhaps you should review all of your album blanking decisions. And take note of the messages you have been removing from various experienced and long-standing accounts at your Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NB @Sergecross73: @Atlantic306: @Geschichte: @EddieHugh: could you please review the Sikonmina account's first edit, does it look like a new editor to you? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, I've already given him a final warning that he's going to be blocked if I see any more patterns of hasty/sloppy/ill-conceived redirections or AFD nominations. (They blanked that warning, for what it's worth.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category split proposal

Made a proposal the other day (found here) about an artist's discog category. Only gotten one response so far offering a different solution, would like more eyes on it to see where consensus lies on either option. Thanks! QuietHere (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Austria year-end charts

I would like to know what should be used as the source for the annual charts in Austria, because I noticed that the ones posted on do not match what is posted on the Hitradio Ö3 website and the sources are being changed. The annual chart page on state that they were taken from Musikmarkt and determined by GfK Entertainment, but the magazine has been shut down since 2016. Should the year-end charts posted by Hitradio Ö3 be used instead? ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WT:CHARTS may be a better forum, but why use when others, such as Ö3 Austria Top 40, are available? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ojorojo: Why then use Dutch Charts? Eurohunter (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are referring to Dutch Top 40 vs Dutch Charts, the better place to ask is at WT:CHARTS. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ojorojo: I think Eurohunter means that we use all the Hung Medien archives as the official chart archives for various European and Australia/New Zealand charts, so they are asking why should we remove but keep using the other Hung Medien charts, such as Richard3120 (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Richard3120: If many of the Hung Medien sites are just archives, then can they really be identified as "charts"? Sites like[1] republish others stats and don't do their own research or have their own methodologies, etc. The link DancingMOON provided shows that the O3 page has been added to, so a link to seems unnecessary. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as the original question goes, even though Der Musikmarkt has closed down I think GfK Entertainment are still responsible for producing the official Austrian charts, so the weekly charts on the Ö3 page and the archive at should be identical, and actually the annual charts should both come from the same source as well. The only reason I can think of for the difference in the annual charts may be that they cover slightly different time periods. Richard3120 (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAR for Niandra LaDes and Usually Just a T-Shirt

I have nominated Niandra LaDes and Usually Just a T-Shirt for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 00:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. Australian musician Flume has announced a new album scheduled for release in May 2022, with a new single to be released tomorrow (2 February). I have prepared an article for it at Draft:Palaces (Flume album) but I'm unsure if I should move this to mainspace or wait a bit longer. Thanks. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 06:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would wait a bit. Half of your sources are primary, and while the other half are good it's still a bit barebones. I'm sure more singles will release and then you can fill it out more, plus the artist is popular enough that he'll probably get a lot of reviews and you'll have plenty of coverage then. QuietHere (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. While not a hard rule, I usually wait until I have 4-5 third party reliable sources dedicated to the subject, and can write around 3 paragraphs of content from them. It's not a rule, but it keeps my content out of deletion/redirect/draft discussions 99% of the time. Sergecross73 msg me 22:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KaitoNkmra23: Turns out Ss112 went ahead and made the article themself (found here). Dunno what the process is from here (Merger, deletion, etc). QuietHere (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@QuietHere: Thanks for letting me know. Not sure what to do with my draft if we go ahead with the new article. After some further thoughts I would agree that it would be best to wait a bit longer until the album receives more coverage from reliable sources and until singles are released which I'd assume won't be too long from now. I would propose a merge or a draftify but of course we'd need a broader general consensus for that. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 08:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirecting Billboard number one rap albums to number R&B/hip-hop albums (thoughts)

Hey. Today, I am moving an archive of lists of number-one Billboard Rap albums to the lists of number-one R&B/hip-hop albums, because Billboard's R&B and rap album charts are furtherly consolidated with the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart, but rather as distillations. It also relates to single charts as well because of the urban music charting precision. What are your thoughts on this?

I am planning on redirecting Rap Albums to Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums#Top Rap Albums and every annual list of number-one rap albums to yearly lists of R&B/hip-hop albums to merge all sectionary chart number-one archives (R&B and rap) for specific genres together (Top R&B/Hip-Hop). What does it look like? Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 21:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A RfC has begun at Kids See Ghosts talk page regarding the genre "psychedelic". Please add your comments there if interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certification - dates needed

At present sales certifications just show the current sales to date. While this is true and verifiable, it can be misleading about the contemporary cultural impact: an album released in 1980 that is certified gold in 1983 is different to one that has only achieved that in 2010. It would be simple for anyone adding a verified certification to also add the date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinlc (talkcontribs) 14:32, February 4, 2022 (UTC)

@Martinlc: This is not an opinion, just a clarification: I presume you refer to certification tables, which are usually listed using {{Certification Table Entry}}. This template does not mandate the |certyear= parameter, but it is very common to include it, so it could easily be displayed if is present, if the community expresses this need. --Muhandes (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, yes. The examples I looked at didn't show this.Martinlc (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cryptooology is a GA nominee and is close to passing, but the nominator appears to be offline. Anyone interested in making the small fixes suggested in the review so that it can be promoted? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling#RfC regarding the album description "claimed to be" has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Albums category produces circular categorisation

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please assist at Template talk:Albums category#Circular categorisation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Time (Five album)

Can anyone approve or decline this so it can be resubmitted or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:331F:C301:7966:9556:C7BE:69AD (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Time (Five album) Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was rightfully declined. The sourcing is pretty rough. See if you can get some sourcing likr the type found at WP:RSMUSIC. Sergecross73 msg me 23:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about now? It's tough because every article is printed in a paper magazine or newspaper and hardly ever put on the website, even when there's a website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:331F:C301:A0FB:5139:DEDC:1B87 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sympathetic to albums released in the 1990s - prior to the internet era - when people say all the sources are locked away in paper sources. But this is a 2022 album release. It strikes me as rather unlikely that it's notable but doesn't have any online sources... Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen the articles in magazines, then look at the magazines website and guess what, it's not there. Sometimes it's promoted on radio, but that doesn't help here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't even seen the big photo shoots done to promote the album online, but you know where I have seen them, in magazines and newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's...exceedingly vague. And again, exceedingly unlikely to be true for a 2022 release. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You want an example. How about Heat magazine. They had a whole 2 page spread on the album and band with a big photoshoot. I cannot for the life of me find it anywhere online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you tried checking for those magazines on or any other online source for newspaper/magazine scans? There are plenty of sites that do it, perhaps you can find your sources there. QuietHere (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Album release query

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

I've left a query at the talk page for All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling, an album with a unique release history which needs clarification around terminology being used (Expect to see the word "official" several times), and I'd like to establish a clear consensus on this one. QuietHere (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliability of

Following comments at a recent FAC and a talk discussion, I was hoping we could have a final consensus on the reliability of (The sources list does not include any link to a prior discussion.) During the FAC, me and DannyMusicEditor compiled this list of credentials for the various writers on the site:

  • Aubin Paul (founder) has worked for Exclaim! (source: [2])
  • Ben Conoley has worked for Alternative Press, Exclaim! (source: [7])
  • Bryne Yancey has worked for Alternative Press, Bandcamp Daily (source: [8] / [9])
  • Xan Mandell has worked for AMP (source: [15])
  • William Jones has worked for AMP, Skratch Magazine (source: [16])
  • Brian Cogan has worked for The New York Post, Chunklet; written or co-wrote the books The Punk Rock Encylopedia, The Encylopedia of Popular Culture, Media and Politics, and co-edited Mosh the Polls: Youth Voters, Popular Culture, and Democratic Engagement. (source: [20])

The website has been around for over 20 years so longevity certainly won't be an issue. Thoughts? MusicforthePeople (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional note: the talk discussion on MftP's page, and they did in fact link an older discussion from nine years ago that came to no clear consensus. If I am interpreting Cobra's stance correctly, they take issue with the fact that users contribute news to the website. Normally, that would be a violation of WP:USERG, but they are clearly and visibly published by these same editorial staff. Is that not what we look for in a source? We look for editorial oversight, thorough experience in the field, and no obvious blemishes to such a reputation. I see all of those satisfied here, as far as I'm concerned. The editorial staff, for a lack of more convincing terms, knows their shit. dannymusiceditor oops 16:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: I believe I prompted this discussion when I cited Archive when criticizing the use of Punknews as a reliable source. Despite the individual credentials of some of the top contributors, the About page still refers to the site as "an inclusive community-based site for the delivery and discussion of music news". I do not see evidence of editorial oversight and believe any registered member have the opportunity to publish there. When I raised the issue, DannyMusicEditor was quick to point out that Punknews was used as a source for a FA candidate. However, upon inspection this is the type of citation used which to me looks wholly unusable for any article, never mind a potential featured article. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the post was approved by one of the site's editorial staff, the way I see it is that them posting it (Aubin Paul, in this case) is direct endorsement of the news, and no different than taking it as if they had written and published it themselves. So why again would that make it unusable? dannymusiceditor oops 17:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will not belabor the point with you again, DannyMusicEditor. I think that citation speaks for itself. And what does the phrase "direct endorsement of the news" even mean? --SVTCobra 17:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It means they're the ones who approve of it being on there? If it wasn't suitable or true, and didn't pass the journalistic process, they wouldn't post it. Do you think they just post anything users throw at them? They do their due diligence. dannymusiceditor oops 17:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do they? What is your evidence? And why is this discussion here instead of WP:RSN? --SVTCobra 17:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why wouldn't they? That's how journalism and news works, if the content isn't authentic, they wouldn't post it, the staff are the filter any submission has to go through. As you said, the source and the credentials above speak for themselves. As for your other question, we're pushing to have it on WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. dannymusiceditor oops 17:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
C'mon. That's not even an argument. Would you be OK if I copy/transfer this thread to WP:RSN? We don't seem to be getting any eyeballs here. --SVTCobra 18:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thread isn't even two hours old. Activity doesn't usually come quick from people outside the ones who started it, but most threads do get something going after a while. Be my guest in copying it over, if you wish. I have a hard time seeing how an admin at WikiNews doesn't see any value in my points, I really do think it quite obvious. dannymusiceditor oops 18:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, since you bring up Wikinews, do you think it should be considered a reliable source? Wikinews does not publish any news without another editor reviewing it. --SVTCobra 18:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only think it shouldn't be because it is affiliated with Wikipedia and its projects and thus I would believe there's a conflict of interest, but that is not relevant to the topic at hand. (There's not necessarily a way to prove the editors of that place have proper credentials outside of Wikipedia, either, and that would be ideal.) dannymusiceditor oops 18:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unreliable. I read Punknews now and then but I've never paid attention to their writers or policies. I just kind of assumed that they were reliable. But now that I'm seeing the lack of writer or editor bios, listed journalistic training or experience, or editorial policies, I can only consider the site unreliable. Jesus, they have a writer named "renaldo69". The only positive is that they have a masthead, but it doesn't help because all of their bios are blank. On the "list of credentials" compiled above, none are contributing editors. One is the founder, and his "experience" is writing a whole seven reviews at Exclaim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodroar (talkcontribs) 22:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: I should mention I created a thread on Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Singles from albums

I had question about singles added to albums or its editions years after it's release. I still have question what to do in case of discographies? Should it be "Non-album single" with note "Single was released on Album in 2022" so we can notice significant difference in years? Also what about remix singles if only album version was released on album? @Tkbrett: @Zmbro: Eurohunter (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have a specific example in mind? From what I can gather here, the album ought not be mentioned in the infobox but instead covered in the body of the text. Tkbrett (✉) 16:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a remix single would something like "Fame '90" or "Don't Stand So Close to Me '86" apply? In those cases they would be non-album singles. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zmbro: you could argue that those two remixes were from albums, created for and promoting Changesbowie and Every Breath You Take: The Singles, respectively. Richard3120 (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Release date query

Here's a query I left earlier this month on the talk page for the Muse album The Resistance regarding its listed release date and the sources behind that information. Hasn't gotten any traction and frankly I'd forgotten about it entirely until just now (had the article sitting in my watchlist and just caught a new edit there), but I figure it's still worth consideration. Any responses are appreciated! QuietHere (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion wave in musical articles

I have been working on album and music-related articles for more than 10 years and in all my time on Wikipedia I have never experienced so many editors dedicated to delete and redirect articles as in the last year. Claiming lack of notability and/or sources, they erase entire discographies in the blink of an eye. The discographies of Mr. Big and Night Ranger disappeared in such a way. Wasn't notability a subject to be decided with a discussion? Wasn't the improvement of articles with the research of reliable sources a priority for editors? Maybe I missed a change of policy on Wikipedia. The last example on my list is the articles Spell of Iron and Follow Me into Madness, where SirZPthundergod9001 could not find more sources besides the two already in the article and deleted them, claiming to be not notable. It appears to me that there are editors more prone to destroy the work of others than on creating content and research material. I guess that any stub article could be at risk now. Lewismaster (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you provide a bit more detail? When I go to the history of Mr. Big discography, I do not see any article deletion for the full history of the article from creation in 2015 to present. Was this discography deleted prior to 2015, and then a new article created? If so, that is not article deletion in the last year. I do see that Night Ranger discography was created on January 5, 2021, but when I dip into the history of Night Ranger, from at least 2019 until January 5, 2021, the band article did not link to a discography page, so I see no evidence that the discography page was deleted by hasty editors. I would ask that you provide examples and links, beyond the two Tarot (band) album articles that you mentioned.
I would like to see if this is an issue, but I am not sure it is when two of your examples don't work as problem issues for me, and the other two could just be a reasonable conflict of opinion. Mburrell (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Part of the issue has been that Sikomina editor, who has started getting blocks for their disruptive removal of content on Wikipedia, so that should help. And no offense, but I've questioned the decision making of SirZP on a number of occasions, so by all means boldly revert them if you disapprove of their actions. Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also an issue that SirZP has been editwarring to reimpose the redirect when challenged, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An example here Atlantic306 (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Then that should be addressed as well. If people can show me WP:DIFs I will warn. Sergecross73 msg me 00:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another diff here and that looks a relatively well referenced article imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sorry for the misunderstanding. They were not the discography pages that were deleted, but many album articles which were redirected to the discography pages. Category adder was responsible for those deletions and his account was blocked after a while. Then came Sikonmina and now a third one. It is just that it's becoming quite tiresome to try to reason with disruptive editors. Lewismaster (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Ripcord

Following a GAN review suggestion, I'd like to start a discussion on British publication No Ripcord. They're already on the list of sources; I figured this would be a good time to get a consensus on them. Per their About page, they've existed since 1999 as a newsletter and then eventually evolved into a website. A long list of writers/other staff can be found here. Here's all the various writing credentials I could find:

Thoughts? MusicforthePeople (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've never seen a problem with them, personally - as you've shown above, they have an editorial team and writers with tons of experience in reliable publications. Richard3120 (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. I haven't used/read No Ripcord in several years but back when I did occasionally, I was impressed with the quality of their album reviews, which would suggest a decent standard of writing and level of editorial oversight. The only reason I haven't returned to the site since then is there never seems to be any coverage for the period of music I tend to focus on.
The site's reviews are recognised by Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic? In fact, in terms of number of reviews, MC affords No Ripcord a greater presence than the likes of American Songwriter [40], The Quietus [41] and even Classic Rock [42] and Record Collector [43]. As surprised as I am about that, it does imply that the site's opinions matter in overall assessments of an album's critical reception. JG66 (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rate Your Music (again)

I feel like some parts of RYM can be used for sources, such as genre pages because the way genres have to be submitted on RYM has to be a queue, where people add a genre with sources, and people vote on it to see if it fits or not. I get about WP:USERG but the thing is that genre pages on RYM are sourced and approved before they appear, so would it be a good source for obscure internet genres that have their own page? Pyraminxsolver (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, but why? What's changed? What about the other info makes it different? Why? I don't really understand what's supposed to be changing my mind here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm asking if we could add this website as a reliable source for some things because some underground internet genres are a bit hard to find sources on and the genre pages on this website give a great long summary of what it is and the history behind it. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get that. But you need a reason to change the consensus. We don't just decide to use unreliable sources because you want to or it's helpful or something. Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not convinced a vote by a majority of users is much better than the genre sidebar on AllMusic – it's still WP:USERG at the end of the day. Richard3120 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see why we couldn't just use whatever sources they're using as our sources, assuming they're WP:RELIABLE of course. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that would conceptually be consistent with how we use YouTube, per WP:RSPYT. But that would be less like using RYM as a source itself, and more like using RYM as a search engine of sorts. Which would technically already be allowed. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But do they actually say anywhere where they have sourced those genres from? I got the impression from the OP that the users of RYM decided on the genres themselves. Richard3120 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no idea personally. It's not usable on Wikipedia and I don't read it personally, so I'm not super familiar with its workings. My general understanding was that it was pretty basic WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Richard3120: RYM's genre's are entirely USERG (based on a public vote by the userbase) so they are unquestionably a no-go for WP. QuietHere (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@QuietHere: thanks for clarifying that... that's exactly what I thought and understood from the original post, hence my query above. So the idea of using RYM as a "search engine" to locate the reliable sources is also a non-starter, because these RS don't actually exist. Richard3120 (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sergecross73: That's my point. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential music video infobox template + song classification

Greetings fellow music Wikipedian colleagues. I am here to make a rather bold proposition. I would like to ask for some general feedback on an idea for a potential infobox rework that has been brewing in my head for a while.

With the days of physical singles being mostly gone, more and more lately, I have been discovering that one of the main ways to promote longer releases like albums is simply through the release of a music video, and more rarely a digital single. (Usually these precede album releases and digitally will just show up as available digital pieces of a whole album prior to its release.) In both popular and not-so-popular genres, I am noticing innumerable examples of songs receiving only music videos, but no physical or airplay release, and still becoming popular or notable tracks from a given record's era.

The tradition on Wikipedia is that most songs we designate "singles" are either sent for radio airplay or, rarely, released as separate and distinct digital singles from the album, and thus videos should be excluded from the infobox. I can live with that definition of "single", but I think another parameter should be created to use for songs that received only official music videos and no other form of release; we could use both parameters in one infobox for such a case.

Why? I believe this would be vital in helping a reader understand in summary what music was used to promote the album in cases where videos are filmed but singles are not issued in the traditional sense. An album's infobox is supposed to summarize basic information about it, right? If singles in the traditional sense can be listed this way, I think something should be adapted to allow for items that only saw video release in a promotional sense. This is especially vital for artists working in scenes that rarely see radio airplay, such as punk rock, metal and indie.

Second, at least in the area I edit in, reliable sources often refer to singles and music videos seemingly interchangeably, which conflicts with how we define them. I believe, based off of thorough personal observation of the alternative music press, that a single and a music video serve relatively the same promotional purpose in many genres, and when no airplay is expected, the video will be considered sufficient as the "single" by the press.

An example I would present for my case would be Tell All Your Friends. "Cute Without the E (Cut from the Team)" is far and away Taking Back Sunday's most popular track on Spotify and Apple Music, and Billboard even said it helped define a genre. It only ever received a music video release, however, and thus does not currently pass the current standard for infobox inclusion. Please note: I am not saying this song should be lumped in with the existing singles. If you move over to my work on Take Off Your Colours (by You Me at Six), I am asking for more of an identical, but separate parameter like this one uses for the singles on its American edition, except the heading for such a parameter would read "Music videos from...".

Selfish Machines does not bear any hint of any notable[clarification needed] songs from this album era, even though "Caraphernelia" and "Bulletproof Love" are among Pierce the Veil's most popular songs. (I could list so many more lesser examples.)

A more popular, and Wikipedia-level notable example I could draw from would be Justin Timberlake's Man of the Woods and its title track. Never did it see a radio release, but it reached the charts and a full-scale music video was created for the song.

So what am I asking for again? Could we consider creating another separate parameter to recognize music video releases which were NOT released as singles in the traditional sense? I think these are just as important to highlight as singles. Another option of how to designate these songs, should they have their own Wikipedia pages, would also be nice. dannymusiceditor oops 04:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This makes a lot of sense. Thanks for detailing it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What seems like the most obvious concern (but someone has to say it) is the size of the infobox. In smaller album articles (which I'd imagine is the majority of them), the infobox even without any singles already stretches through a lot of the page, and adding a block for singles on top of that can make it cover the whole page. Adding another module on top of that for these special cases is just more extending the size of the infobox, and I'm sure there are plenty of editors who would much prefer the infobox be kept manageable. These are the sorts of details that, if you have all the info for them, can easily fit in a "Background"/"Promotion" prose section of an article and don't necessarily need that shorthand. I respect the idea but I just don't think it's that necessary/worth the real estate it would take up on a page. QuietHere (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    QuietHere, since I'm not getting any other responses yet, I'll offer a response. I did actually consider this before I made my proposal, but if it's me you're asking, I'm just not that bothered by it. If readers want a quick summary of which songs were important parts of the album, they generally look to the infobox, and I think we are doing more good than harm by giving it a little more length. But that's my personal preference. dannymusiceditor oops 04:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How about using {{Collapsed infobox section begin}}? --Muhandes (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How would that interact with the WP:DONTHIDE policy? I'm not super familiar with all the ins and outs of MOS:ACCESSIBILITY but I'd like to be sure we're in the clear regarding that before making any moves. QuietHere (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bumping this thread in hopes it shows on some watchlists. Was hoping for a lot more than this over two weeks. dannymusiceditor oops 15:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was trying to not throw cold water on your plan, but I've historically not been supportive of Wikipedian's efforts to solve the music industry's inability to fix the lack of a set definition of singles, promotional single, promotional song, music video song, etc eft - in the modern age. Personally, I don't think it's our issue to solve - it's the industry's. I know that's not helpful, and I'm happy to keep it to myself, but I figured I'd at least explain that, since I'm one of the most active editors here at WT:ALBUM. Sergecross73 msg me 15:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgive me if I'm speaking beyond what a true Wikipedian is supposed to think like, but frankly, I do not have any faith that the industry as a whole is actually ever going to agree on one consistent definition. It differs entirely by genre, and I feel that if we don't sit down and discuss a common understanding of the term, we're going to be confused, and consequently stuck, indefinitely. One standard here will prevent dozens of confused discussions in the future. But really, my point isn't to make all types of singles the same, just make music videos equally visible in the infobox. Ideally, in my perfect world, promotional singles being excluded from singles should be done away with and marked as promo accordingly, but that's another discussion. dannymusiceditor oops 15:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No no, I hear you, I don't particularly have faith in the industry either, it's been an issue for at least a decade now, probably longer. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been thinking about your suggestion, and I'm not entirely against the idea - it makes a lot of sense, as Walter says. QuietHere's point is also a valid concern, but we're already starting to see a lot of album infoboxes where the number of singles from the album can stretch into double figures. I think it's unlikely we're going to see many albums where we'll have eight singles AND another six video singles on top of that... more likely the two types combined won't be more than seven or eight songs in total, probably fewer. So I don't think infobox length is going to be an issue on more than a handful of albums. Sergecross73 probably raised a more pressing concern as to the potential confusion that will arise regarding "is this a single or not?"... this is a discussion that has come up repeatedly here. Richard3120 (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is the issue that some people will have a problem identifying an "official" video. Despite the guidance, links are often added to song videos that do not clearly indicate that they have been "uploaded by the musician(s), the record companies, or Vevo". Some editors may attempt to add releases for any videos that they happen to find, similar to adding anything that resembles a "single". This is something that is better left for the main body of the article. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the question of "is this a single or not?", would the two separate mediums not essentially serve the same purpose in terms of promoting the band's work? I would say yes, but I disagree that standalone music videos were "singles" per se. That being said, my point is I think they're just as important, and having their own space would help readers a lot in shorthand. As for your point raised, Ojorojo, is that not part of what we do here? To help such a guideline be followed? dannymusiceditor oops 16:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Infobox parameters should be as obvious or self-explanatory as possible. When someone sees "Singles from ABC Album", they wouldn't realize that it is limited or restricted to those released "during the marketing and promotion of the album" or that it excludes certain promos, without extra research. A similar issue with "Videos from Album" is likely, where any video may be seen as fair game, especially when unofficial videos are already linked in the article (see YouTube links below).
We should not be adding parameters that require constant patrolling and enforcement or are known only to experienced editors. My question would be, why is it so important to list these (singles and videos) in the infobox? They should be discussed in a promotion/marketing section, where they can be properly referenced (notice all the attempts to reference release dates in infoboxes). Another concern, as pointed out, is potentially expanding the infobox to the point where it overwhelms shorter articles.
Ojorojo (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAR for Californication (album)

I have nominated Californication (album) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Album length

The length of an album obviously refers to its duration when played in its entirety. However, some albums have later editions with more songs which increase their lengths. When writing the length of an album in infoboxes, do we only write the length of the album when it was first released, or we can include lengths of other editions? Rattatast (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox album#length explains it: "Usually, only the length of the original album release should be entered. The timing of reissues or other releases, such as with bonus tracks, should be added to a "Releases" or similar section in the main body of the article, if noteworthy." (see the linked text for more info). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the template guideline states that only the lenghth of the album in its original form should be added in the infobox. I wonder, what make the original length so important that it should be the only one mentioned? If an album was later released with more songs, then that's how the album will be from then on. The album will not regress to the same number of songs as when it was first released. Also, I don't see what's wrong in adding two lengths. Rattatast (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because an album is rarely only reissued once, and in only one extra format. As far as I know, Songs from the Big Chair and A Secret Wish have both been issued in six different formats since their original releases in 1985, and all the formats have different running times because they all have different song mixes or additional tracks. So do we really want to clog up the infobox with numerous running times, explaining which version they relate to for each one?

YouTube song links in album articles

Links to song videos are being added to album articles. Often, these are for songs that are listed as album tracks that have no commentary in the article. Some links show "removed" or "not available in your area". I haven't seen any guidance or discussion on this and wonder if the problem of link rot might outweigh their potential benefit. Any thoughts? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO YouTube song links should not be included in albums, as that makes no sense. Now, if there was a fully streamable version of the album on YouTube uploaded by VEVO or the official musician then I'd say we could make an argument for that. But individual song links should absolutely not be placed into album articles. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was my first impression, but then perhaps there are song videos made to promote an album, which might be arguably justifiable. Otherwise, linking a song video in an album article when there is no commentary seems arbitrary. Regarding your second point, full-album audio "videos", with no apparent connection to the record company or artist, seem to greatly outnumber those uploaded by Vevo or other official sources. The album style advice page includes "Appropriate links may include links to chords or lyrics for the tracks on the album. Note however that lyrics may be protected by copyright, and external resources that reprint lyrics may be violating that copyright, in which case they should not be linked" (WP:ALBUMSEL). But it makes no mention of videos or audio links, which should trigger the same concerns as lyrics. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the streaming age, artists will often make album tracks available to listen to via YouTube videos as this counts towards streaming figures. I think in the grand scheme of things this is largely insignificant. If videos like music videos should be linked, it should always be the official video from a verified Channel like the artist or label. Even better would be a third party RS. But yeah unless there is significant or notable coverage, they generally shouldn't be linked.≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The distribution rights to a song may be owned by the artists themselves. This is becoming much more common these days. But for very many older records, the rights will be retained by the record label. Some song music videos on YouTube are provided by multiple labels, so one must assume they each retain copyright rights? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be useful to agree clear guidelines for this. In my opinion, as long as a video has been made available to YouTube by the record label concerned, i.e. there is no copyvio, an album track is the ideal means of providing an example of the material on that album. Some videos also provide lyrics. I would argue that it's usually far more useful than an audio clip, which is never longer the 30 seconds and is often shorter. I agree that some tracks may be removed from YouTube, or may have different access conditions between countries. This is no different to any other internet link although links to archive versions of YouTube videos are not possible and archive records of past YouTube posts are perfectly feasible. I would also agree that there may be a degree of arbitrariness in selection of a single album track, if it is not specifically described in the article text, although less so if it has also been issued as a single from the album. But for me the benefit of providing a sample outweighs this. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like opinions differ on whether songs should be added:

  • Option 1 – Song links should not be added, but full-album links are acceptable, provided they are "uploaded by the musician(s), the record companies, or Vevo".
  • Option 2 – Song links may be added if they are the subject of some commentary in the article (as opposed to merely being listed).
  • Option 3 – Songs links may be added for any and all album songs (with the standard proviso "uploaded by the musician(s), the record companies, or Vevo").

If these adequately reflect the opinions for far, should there be a vote or possibly an RfC to establish a consensus?

Ojorojo (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Option 3 - I am certainly not suggesting that "any and all album tracks" should added. If there is already a separate article for a song, a YT link should not be added for it. Similarly, if there is already a source in the article which has that song video embedded. I'm suggesting that only one link should be added on the basis of (in order):
  1. mentioned (or mentioned most) in the text;
  2. released as a single (or the most successful single);
  3. editor's own personal judgement as to what is representative of the album as a whole.
No objection to a vote, but an RfC would probably be much better. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My !vote would be for Martinevans123's option 1 and 2. I'm not sure why Vevo would be mentioned as not all artists use it (but many do). Full-length would be problematic, but individual songs may be appropriate if relevant to the article with the same criteria as fair use policy. We do not just want to be a source for links to songs, but we do want to have the ability to allow the reader to experience the elements of the song as described in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I quite agree, I think VEVO is a bit of a red herring. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFD input requested

Hello everyone. If anyone could take a look and comment on the AFD for "Coincidance", I'd appreciate it. I think it could use some fresh, experienced eyes. Thanks in advance if you can. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chart section request

Can anyone add a chart section to the new article about the Grammy-winning album The Unofficial Bridgerton Musical? Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decade question

It seems LucasKannou (talk · contribs) has been changing {{2000s-album-stub}} and its children to {{2010s-album-stub}} for albums released in 2010. They have been 2000s way for a while. Can anyone explain why that is the right or wrong move? The editor does not seem to want to listen to my rationale that there was no year 0. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to Wikipedia, the 2010s "was a decade that began on 1 January 2010, and ended on 31 December 2019." StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's technically true that decades go from 1 to 10 rather than 0 to 9, as you state, but doesn't it look odd to have a 2020 album categorised as Category:2020 albums and then immediately afterwards see {{2010s-album-stub}}? I think the average reader will find it difficult to comprehend that the 2010s don't start in 2010. Richard3120 (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A decade is any 10-year interval (January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2004 is a decade). A century is any 100-year interval. The 21st Century began on January 1, 2001. The 2020s began on January 1, 2020. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it does not look odd to have 2010 being in the 2000s and not in the 2010s because it is technically correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand what you're saying about there being an issue as far as the year zero goes in the "00's", but I hardly feel like I've ever seen the sentiment that, for example, 1970 wasn't part of "the 70s"... Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be "technically correct" but from everything I've ever seen it's never been popularly correct. End-of-decade coverage in all our favorite reliable sources always comes after an XXX9 year rather than an XXX0 year in my experience, and while I agree that it's silly and a bit confusing, we should defer to that as we always do. QuietHere (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, our favourite sources started doing this in the 90s. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please help create the page for the new Pusha T album — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackner2 (talkcontribs) 04:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ackner2:, it already exists here. TheCartoonEditor(he/him/they) (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Under the Radar

As the case with No Ripcord, Under the Radar is on the list of sources, but lacks a discussion in the archives. According to their article, they've been around since 2001, releasing four issues a year prior to the pandemic and have been nominated for a Plug Award on three occasions. They're used by Metacritic; a list of various editors can be found here. Here's various writing credentials I've found:

Thoughts? MusicforthePeople (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support listing them as reliable. In addition to experienced writers, they started as a print magazine, which generally means they meet our requirements as well. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support as well. I think the only reason they've never been discussed is because as a long-established print publication, it was taken for granted that they meet RS. Richard3120 (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never seen anything that would make me question UtR's legitimacy so I think they're in the clear. QuietHere (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, the usage of Full Communism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Full Communism (album) -- (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple track listings

The recently released Pusha T album It's Almost Dry currently has two track listing templates, one standard and one for the Ye vs. Pharrell version which contains all the same tracks but in a different order. The difference is also explained in a footnote below both templates that I think explains the difference quite succinctly, and so I decided to remove the latter template thinking it unneeded. That edit was quickly reverted, and given the WP:BRD setup I'd been given I went to the talk page and launched a query. The reversion of my edit also mentioned a similar situation regarding Kendrick Lamar's Damn. and its second "Collectors Edition" template (the Damn. Collectors Edition track list is the same as the original but in exact reverse order). I started a query there too but given the lack of response so far I was told to take my concerns here instead, and here we are. In my opinion neither second track list are necessary when they can just as easily be explained in a sentence or two of prose. Why take up all that space, put up even more content for users to have to scroll past, when you can make the same point so much more briefly? But of course there's at least one user who disagrees with this premise and so I come here for consensus. QuietHere (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, repeating the whole track listing just for a different order is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is a clear precedent for this at WP:ALTTRACKLIST where it says "Include track listings for alternative editions only when they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article. In such cases, additional track listings can be listed under subheadings. Otherwise, notable differences can be summarised in the prose in lieu of additional track lists.". I think unless there is specific commentary that the different track listing is significant e.g. one of the versions of the album is responsible for more sales etc, a note in wording perfectly suffices. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree, WP:ALTTRACKLIST is meant exactly for these cases. The existing short note is more than enough. --Muhandes (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thirded... what you and Lil-unique1 say is quite right, in fact it's easier to see the difference with the explanation in the note than by comparing the track listings. And these are for limited release versions anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Tech and Harvard Crimson

This may be a really obvious (or not) question, but I've never been able to fully suss Wikipedia's stance on student newspapers; in album articles, my (potentially entirely wrong) impression is that it depends on what they're being used (or not used) to source, or on the particular notability and third-party respect of the newspapers. I've encountered The Tech and The Harvard Crimson numerous times when wanting to expand articles, most recently today when I've seen them both assign a particular genre to an album that other publications seemingly haven't, and was wondering whether they would count as reliable.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder as well--I recently removed a Crimson rating or review from a reviews box or critical reception section, as it's a student paper. I'd be fine with getting rid of them across the board. What we definitely don't want to do is allow, for example, just Ivy League schools or something. The other wrench I've found: I'll be ready to use a RS newspaper review or article, only to find that the review is by a high school student...although "we" know for sure that RS newspapers have editorial policies and editors, so we can assume that the high schooler's review was in fact edited... Caro7200 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah it seems tricky. My personal hunch would be to avoid student papers generally, except for minor things like album genres and release dates, or maybe the odd non-controversial info or observation here and there. But I don't know how wise that is.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd agree with you both, and especially with Caro7200's statement that we shouldn't view The Harvard Crimson as inherently more reliable than the student newspaper of the University of Alabama or whatever... we'd rightly be accused of snobbery on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to WP:RSSM, Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community. They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available. In your case, since other professional publications aren't assigning those genres, I would err on the side of caution and avoid adding those to the articles.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 14:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I work at a Communications college with many colleagues who are current and former journalists, and can attest that journalism students are trained to run university newspapers like the professionals, and often have faculty oversight. Thus, for most university newspapers, reporting is solid and can be considered trustworthy. (Whether that corresponds with reliable here can be discussed further.) I don't think we can say the same for high school papers though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd agree, though I'd also say there's a time and a place for their use too. A weird prog rock album that only has 5 sources? Absolutely. But does it make sense to add South Nevada University's review of the new Taylor Swift album that has 80 reviews listed on Metacritic? I'd hold off using it there. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jiroe. Sean Stephens (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Numbering of album chronology in lead

BTS' upcoming album Proof is their first anthology album (their label announced it as such) and secondary sources corroborate this. In the chronology of their discography, it's their 7th compilation album and 4th Korean-lang compilation. I originally wrote the opening line of the lead as "Proof is an upcoming anthology album by South Korean boy band BTS...", but another editor changed that to "Proof is the upcoming fourth Korean-language compilation album (seventh overall) by South Korean boy band BTS...". There are no sources so far (BB, RS, NME etc.) to support the 7th or 4th, but if you count the albums yourself then the numbering becomes apparent. I have used similar wording in the past when appropriate, but usually secondary sources corroborate that particular detail. I looked at the Beatles anthology album articles for guidance when I worded the BTS album stub and thought it was fine like that. Idk if this amounts to splitting hairs, but is the present wording better? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English versus British

The following conversation at Talk:Ella_Henderson#RFC:_British_Versus_English might be of interest to you ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'd like to propose adding British publication Gigslutz to the list of sources. According to the about tab on their Facebook page, they've been around since 2013 and had pieces featured in The Guardian, NME and Uncut. Here's various writing credentials I've found:

Thoughts? MusicforthePeople (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find it a bit difficult to take a name like that as a serious, professional publication...but they do have credentialed writers... Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, I was sceptical about the name as well. I'm hoping the amount of credentials make up for that. MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a British outlet - the name and "slang" Slutz is very tongue and cheek/British Humour. But look at their website they have some very credible endorsements from artists themselves:

  • “Gigslutz is our ‘go to’ online music site for our daily music news updates…. had the pleasure to be interviewed by them last year before the Happy Mondays re-union tour…was good to meet Steve …he was very knowledgeable about the band and asked some great questions ..and the piece he did for us was one of the best from that period”. Gaz Whelan (Happy Mondays)
  • “Gigslutz represent real deal music fans passionate for the right reasons. I love what they stand for! Musicians or bands can’t help but like them because they breakdown all barriers & make you feel like you’re being interviewed by your best mates. Love Gigslutz!” KAV
  • “ is the place I go to first for music news/reviews & what’s on. Always up to date with what’s happening and a great show on Hoxton Radio, which I’ve had the pleasure of appearing on. Keep it up.” Bonehead
  • “Gigslutz brings smart reviews and interviews about contemporary music, often introducing bands that are below the radar and giving them visibility. All in favour of that!” Horace Panter (The Specials)

On that basis, and because the contributors seem credible, I think its perfectly usable. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quiet Riot's debut album

Hi. Can anyone help with this requested move in regards to the album's release year? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tracklist problems

I'm trying to start a new page for Daryl Hall's recently released Before After. However, I keep screwing up the track listing table. Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong here?--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What seems to be the issue with it? I can't see anything that jumps out as immediately wrong. QuietHere (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Tkbrett has already fixed it. Richard3120 (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this album notable enough?

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I don't know if the album "Just Got Back From the Discomfort—We're Alright" by The Brave Little Abacus is notable enough to write about. There was an incredibly lengthy staff review in Sputnikmusic (enough to write an article based on, really), as well as making a place on SPIN's "30 Best Emo Revival Albums" list[85] and Crossfader's "emo primer":[86]. It also got a review in a student magazine[87], which I have been told is not reliable though. The album has received a lot of attention from unreliable sources, e.g. it is the 3rd ranked album from 2010 in the user-generated RateYourMusic[88], which is why I'm interested in writing about it, though I don't think that can factor into notability.

I started to write an article about it at User:Endwise/sandbox 2, but stopped because I didn't know enough about how WP:NALBUM works in practice. Do the 3 sources listed above (staff review in Sputnikmusic, appearence in SPIN and Crossfader lists), meet has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources? Thanks for the help. Endwise (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Endwise:Its a tricky one because it depends how much information it leads to. Try to avoid directly copying large chunks from the reviews. Did the album chart by any chance? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Endwise:, its apparently mentioned in the book Perfect Sound Whatever by James Acaster too. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the help Face-smile.svg. I don't think it charted because it only become popular a while after its release, though I don't know how to actually check. It seems Acaster's book briefly mentions that the album "had a beautifully stitched-together flow to it, full of detailed sound collages" and that Katie Dey was listening to it while trying to make music, and then it quickly moves on. That's something to mention in an article, though I think I'll have to keep looking before publishing a full article on it :( Endwise (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For one, it'd be good to start with a draft based on what has been found so far just to see how much info you've actually got and what the article looks like. Might also make it easier for other editors to find more info if they can see the names involved. And the draft reviewers are generally good judges of what works as an article and what doesn't so you can rely on them as well. From what you've got so far it's hard to say whether it'd pass or not, but it's worth a try. QuietHere (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took a crack at it: Just Got Back From the Discomfort—We're Alright. Endwise (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heavy metal lead discussion

(Yes, I know this is WT:ALBUMS, but this is probably the most active of the music related Wikiprojects so I thought I'd mention it here too.)

There is a discussion on how to handle the lead section in the heavy metal music article and how the lead covers the accusations of misogyny in the sourced section about sexism in the body. It can be located here. Any input is appreciated. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Positions - is the impact of covid-19 noteworthy for the lead

Hi all, there's a discussion about the above topic at Talk:Positions_(album)#Inclusion_of_Covid_in_the_lead. Would appreciate some other comments from other editors, without prejudice. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC: 100 million copies claimed for Thriller

If anyone is interested to join the discussion. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone have a copy of Rolling Stone's 2003 edition of the 500 Greatest albums of all time list?

The 2012 and 2020 editions are available online, but the 2003 one isn't. At least it isn't available from any reliable source. Famous Hobo (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For those who have Rolling Stone in print at their local library, the specific issue is No. 937 on December 11, 2003. Tkbrett (✉) 20:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a specific thing you would like to know? I see the text in PQ. Caro7200 (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There might be a copy in the British Library, I can have a look later this month. As Caro7200 said, is there something in particular that you need? Richard3120 (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2003 list is available in Rolling Stone at this source in groupings of 50 albums from 500-451 to 50-1. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I really just needed confirmation of the inclusion of Californication by the Red Hot Chili Peppers at number 399, as well as what the reference would look like. Also the Rolling Stone website says that list is for the 2003 edition, but it's actually for the 2012 edition. This is the 2003 list and this is the 2012 list. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. 399 appears to be correct, other unofficial online copies of the list also place it at that position. But yes, it really needs an official copy of Rolling Stone to confirm it. It *should* be in the British Library – I'll try and remember to have a look for it when I'm there in a couple of weeks. Richard3120 (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Famous Hobo: having now visited the British Library, I found the relevant copy of Rolling Stone and can confirm that Californication is indeed no. 399 on the list... on page 162, to be exact. The complete list is pages 83 to 178 of the December 11, 2003 issue, for future reference for other editors, and the lists found on non-RS sites on the internet are correct... I checked all 500 entries. Richard3120 (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Richard3120: Thank you so much! Famous Hobo (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft review

Been working on Draft:Diamond Star Halos the last few days, submitted it twice and been rejected both times. The first time was understandable because it was still stub-level and barebones (though I still think it was clearly notable at that point), but this second time I don't get. I wouldn't normally ask for this but given the circumstances could someone give the article a look and tell me what else I might be missing that I could add? I can't really imagine why this wouldn't clear. QuietHere (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks perfectly acceptable to me. I notice that the person who declined your submission started working as an AfC reviewer just this month. I also note that to date they have declined almost every submission they've received, on any topic. So I think you've just been unfortunate and got someone who is very demanding of their requirements. Perhaps you could drop them a message and ask them what else they felt was missing - this album will almost certainly have charted in several countries by Friday so that should clinch it. Richard3120 (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have definitely accepted this submission. Four independent and reliable in-depth reviews and the additional coverage should satisfy WP:GNG. As Richard3120 said, by the weekend there would surely have charts to cement WP:NMUSIC but I don't think there is reason to delay. I don't want to go against another reviewer but perhaps Kaleeb18 would like to reconsider? --Muhandes (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is definitely passable! ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I do not know musics sources that well. I thought the only good ones were the telegraph and metal hammer. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 11:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kaleeb18: in that case would you accept it if I resubmitted now? Or is there still more that you think needs doing? QuietHere (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@QuietHere: I suppose so ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 11:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kaleeb18: just for future reference... there's a list of sources deemed acceptable by consensus at WP:RSMUSIC (and a list of sources definitely not acceptable at WP:NOTRSMUSIC). The list isn't exhaustive, but Blabbermouth is on there – Ultimate Classic Rock is published by Townsquare Media, one of the world's major media companies, and there's nothing wrong with The Arts Desk either, it's won awards for its journalism. "Louder Sound" is just the umbrella website for three magazines published by Future, namely Classic Rock, Metal Hammer and Prog – all three magazines are monthly publications widely available in UK newsagents. You can tell which magazine of the three the article appears in print form by its logo at the top of the page: in this case Classic Rock. Richard3120 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool thanks for the info. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 21:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please provide more input in this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_31#Category:Liam_Payne_EPs. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noisecreep reliable?

Does have a listing at WP:RSMUSIC but no linked discussion. Couldn't find a specific discussion about it. Is owned by Townsquare Media which also owns the (as far as I'm aware) known reliable Loudwire and XXL, but doesn't appear to have any info on an editorial team (though to be fair I couldn't find one for Loudwire either, and XXL is also listed without a discussion). Appears in plenty of refs. Would just be good to confirm that RSMUSIC listing is for a good reason. QuietHere (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also gonna leave this link here so I can remember why this came up in the first place. QuietHere (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never done a deep dive, but I've always used them without issue. Being founded by a corporation as (then) big as AOL is definitely a good sign. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spent almost 20 minutes finding these 10 writers:
I can try to dig up more, if you'd like? MusicforthePeople (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's up to you, but I'm convinced it's reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, this looks pretty definitive to me. Just good to be sure, thanks! And someone feel free to drop this in the RSMUSIC entry (unless anyone shows up with any objections of course). QuietHere (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really my area of editing, but I've never seen any problem with this source, and as stated, Townsquare are a very big international media company with other reliable publications in their portfolio. Richard3120 (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion

Please see Talk:As_I_Am#Requested_move_5_June_2022Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability of a Tally Hall album?

Hey! I've been deliberating for a bit on the creation of a wiki page for Tally Hall's Admittedly Incomplete Demos album. While it is just a demo compilation, it bears a lot of similarities to their Complete Demos album, which does have its own page. Admittedly Incomplete Demos had a page but was pulled altogether for bad sourcing and not being relevant enough, although I think with better sourcing and managing of the related topics it could prove itself useful in the Tally Hall / related cultural sphere of knowledge. I've tried to remedy some of these issues in my sandbox, namely by including a section about the physical release of a single from the album and accumulating more references. Although I can't claim to know what exactly makes a "good reference", I definitely included more of them where I thought them to be helpful than the Complete Demos page ever has. Any feedback would be appreciated! I'd especially like to know what kind of further background info I could add to legitimize its page, as I haven't ever made a page on Wikipedia before.

--Peenwald (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Basically it needs sources independent of the artist.
  • Commercial sources like Spotify aren't valid for notability.
  • The YouTube source is problematic.
  • Unfortunately there seems to be precious Google News sources
  • A general Google Search also fails to find any usable sources.
  • Are there any print media sources? Albums are generally not notable if they don't meet WP:NALBUMS. It might be very difficult if the album didn't chart and wasn't covered by mainstream outlets tbh ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAC – Bleed American

Hello everyone. DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) and myself have nominated Bleed American by Jimmy Eat World for the FA process. Any comments would be appreciated as it is a few days away from being archived if there is no further attention on it. MusicforthePeople (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Do we can use Musicoholics in Wikipedia as a reliable source? --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move

Please see Talk:Phonograph record Swordman97 talk to me 07:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overly long accolades lists

Last year, this topic was already covered on the talk page. An RfC was opened, and the almost unanimous consensus was to cut down the year-end or decade-end tables to only ten publications. However, the RfC was never closed. As there was no changes in WP:ALBUMSTYLE, most of the articles that are mentioned in the discussion still have these large lists.
Furthermore, some articles such as Senjutsu (this one is completely ridiculous), in addition to the insanely large table, also have a really long prose section that talks about the accolades that some songs, videos, illustrations, members of the band, etc. have received or have been nominated to. Is any of this really worth mentioning in the article? Jocafus (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My opinion is that I agree that the tables are usually too long and that ten seems to be a good limit a la the albums rating template. Mostly I disagree on aesthetic reasons in that I find them an eyesore that disrupts the layout of the prose. The prose, however, I'm all for as a vessel to discuss these sort of rankings, and I don't think ten should be a fixed limit there like it should be with tables - provided a paragraph on such things isn't boring and repetitive as a result - since there is room to group different types of lists (year-ends, all-times, genre lists) separately in whatever manner, whereas I've seen tables that densely bundle everything together.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree with a hard limit on tables and no limit on prose (not sure "boring and repetitive" should even apply here but that's another question entirely). As for the Senjutsu example, if there are enough awards going to a particular single/music video then wouldn't that be a sign of notability for that song/video, meaning it should be split off into its own article? Would definitely help with clog issues. If not, perhaps separating them with subheadings would clean it up a bit. QuietHere (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that should exists a shortcut. When I see a music work with an overly long lists, sometimes I fix it by myself or when an album have GA/FA status, or if the artist have a considerable group of watcher and WikiProject; in these scenarios I usually notify (first) at the talk page about the consensus, thus in this way other can choose what publications should remains. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC for Cuepoint started

An RfC has been started to determine the reliability of the Medium publication Cuepoint. Your participation is welcomed. TheSandDoctor Talk 17:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bieber comp?

Had a thought about a question regarding Justin Bieber's Journals, supposedly a compilation despite being made up of all original material and only three sources on the page (Billboard, Complex, and Washington Post) actually calling it one. The same question was already proposed here in 2019 and I'd like to revive the conversation there (even though the original poster there was blocked for sockpuppetry). QuietHere (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a reason why those three very mainstream sources are not enough? Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because there are several other very mainstream sources that appear to say otherwise. QuietHere (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotcha. I just wondered since you didn't mention the counterpoint. Well, here's another way of looking at it. I'm not a Beebs fan, so I'm no expert, but I'm seeing a variety of high level sources call his most recent album, Justice (Justin Bieber album), his sixth album. That is only his sixth studio album if you excludeJournals from the list. If you count Journals, Justice would have to be his seventh album. That makes me think it's not generally considered a standard studio album. Some sources that back this theory include USA Today, NME, Vanity Fair, and a host of others. Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a fair counterpoint, thank you for providing it. Will mention it on the album's talk page, looks like the case is open and shut. QuietHere (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Marketed by" = record label?

On the new Brent Faiyaz album Wasteland, another editor (@RodeoWrld) is claiming that the use of the term "marketed by" on the album's Spotify page, as well as mention on this page as releasing labels, is enough evidence that Venice Music and Stem Disintermedia are legitimate record labels to be included in the article. No other sources presented so far even mention those two, only Lost Kids (the artist's label which has sole release credit on his other releases per the discography section of his WP article). Personally I'm not fully convinced, and have made that clear here (the second revert but the first where I remembered to mention it in my edit summary). The labels have been added a third time since, this time with that HitsDailyDouble page as a source, and rather than get into WP:3RR territory I've decided to bring it here. They also mention a precedent based on The Weeknd's releases (can confirm at least for After Hours per Spotify, haven't checked the rest yet). I'm not about to say there's no case here but I still believe it's an open question worth bringing for consensus. Thoughts? QuietHere (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After looking through the rest of The Weeknd's albums on Spotify, only Dawn FM shares the exact same language. Some others say "manufactured and marketed by", House of Balloons says "A Republic Records release", and both Thursday and Echoes of Silence say they are "Distributed by Republic Records". At the same time, all of those releases have other sources confirming Republic's involvement as a full record label and not just marketing support or whatever else. The only Faiyaz releases with articles (Wasteland, its two singles "Gravity" and "Wasting Time", and Fuck the World) don't have sources for those labels other than the ones for Wasteland mentioned above. "Gravity" and "Wasting Time" both list Venice and Stem, but those were added by RodeoWrld without sources. Fuck the World only lists Lost Kids, though I only just made that article yesterday and no other editors have touched it yet. The sources I've seen for that EP and those singles never mentioned either label, but if the two were at least involved in the album then they might also be involved with the singles. QuietHere (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just looking at the California Trade Mark and Company filing for Lost Kids LLC, it says that the company is involved in musical recordings, productions of music and entertainment services. According to Venice Music's website, they provide With our Premium Services offering, we will support you at any point along your journey as an artist; bespoke to what you need and at whatever stage you require it. Supportive to your evolving needs throughout your releases and journey, we are equipped to strategize and execute across A&R, Creative, Digital, Marketing, Streaming and Sync. Similarly STEM records seems to be involved in distribution services. On that basis, I would say that both can be listed because it seems collectively that all three organisations are involved, and together they provide record label services as a collective. Again, with the Weeknd, his company owns the masters and pays for his recordings etc but its distributed through Republic so both should be included. This is clearer on the CD for Dawn FM where it shows both XO and Republic as labels. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just noticed a usage of as a source on "Have You Ever Seen the Rain?". My immediate thought was that that shouldn't be there, surely that site is no good under WP:USERG or something. But I couldn't find any discussions regarding it (though it has been brought up in discussions on other subjects), just that it is currently used 223 times on English WP. And then I realised that I don't actually know that much about SongMeanings. I had assumed it was user-generated content; after all, there is a big orange "Create Account" button right up front on the homepage. What else would I need an account for but to add my own fun facts? Per the about page the site is "a community of thousands of music lovers who contribute lyrics, discuss interpretations, and connect over songs and artists they love!", and while there is also a staff page which is typical of reliable sources, none of the descriptions there mention anything about editorial oversight. This seems like a cut-and-dry case of USERG, but I just find it interesting that despite how obvious this seems, it appears that nobody's brought it up before. So perhaps there's something I'm missing here; either WP's search failed to show me what I was looking for, or I just haven't dug enough through SM's site to find evidence of their reliability that everyone else already knows about. I dunno, I guess it could exist. Anyway, if it really hasn't come up before then I feel like I owe it to all of us to actually ask the question: is a reliable source, or a user-generated heap of nothing valuable to us 'round these parts? If the latter, should it get a listing at WP:NOTRSMUSIC? QuietHere (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really good spot. Its absolutely not a reliable source per what it says on its about page SongMeanings is a community of thousands of music lovers who contribute lyrics, discuss interpretations, and connect over songs and artists they love!. It is effectively akin to Reddit. Although there are staff almost all the discussions are just fans. I'd agree a threat/opening at NOTRSMUSIC would be worth it. I can't understand peoples' fascinations to use the most shitty sources just to make a point. Go off what information is there instead of trying desperately to add detail. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 11:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's 100% WP:USERG, no doubt about it. In the case of this song, the song's writer has even stated what the song is about, so why the need to add speculation by other people, I don't know. Richard3120 (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've gone ahead and added it to WP:NOTRSMUSIC. Popcornfud (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad that's cleared up. Thank you all! QuietHere (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now begins removing its appearances. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI - you may wish to get involved in the above conversation. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD alert

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acoustic (Joey Cape and Tony Sly album) just got relisted after receiving zero responses over the last week since I posted it, so I figured I should grab for some more attention here. Should be pretty cut and dry. QuietHere (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Power pop albums by American artists

Have a question about this sort of category--can't believe I've never noticed this before: Every album article by the listed artists appears under this category even if RS in individual album articles don't describe the music as power pop? I've only glanced at this, but I'm not sure every album by, say, Alex Chilton or NRBQ would be considered power pop; these were artists with long careers. A similar thing is going on with folk albums. Is this sacrificing accuracy for convenience: a kind of pigeonholing? I thought the genre of music was determined by what RS say about a specific album, not by the genre in which a musician has often (or sometimes) worked. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If an album is not described by sources as a certain genre then it shouldn't be in a category for that genre (unless it's a subgenre of that genre which doesn't have its own category). QuietHere (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Caro7200 says, i think it's a result of pigeonholing... so many album articles have unsourced genres in the infobox, and they get categorized the same way. Obviously Chilton was in the band that are pretty much considered the godfathers of power pop, but even then it's difficult to describe Third/Sister Lovers as either power or pop. I've just had a look at Category:Progressive house albums, and it's full of records by EDM DJs and producers that have nothing to do with progressive house, but contains no records at all by the two British DJs most associated with the genre, John Digweed and Sasha. So yes, I think most genre categories are currently filled with records that have nothing to do with the genre. Richard3120 (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I may try to clean up some of these. Caro7200 (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the genre category doesn't apply to all of the albums within the artist's albums category, then it should be removed from that category and placed directly in the specific album articles for which it does apply. I will sometimes keep the genre category if there's only a one-off in which the artist may have recorded an experimental or change-of-pace type of album. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wavelength (soundtrack)

Wavelength (soundtrack) looks to have been boldly merged into Wavelength (1983 film)#Soundtrack back in 2016 without any discussion. This merge has come up during an ongoing FFD about the non-free use of the album’s cover art in the article about the film. Would some members mind taking a a look at the merge to see whether it should be undone per WP:NALBUM? Perhaps WP:NEXIST is applicable and more sources discussing coverage the album can be found. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The most I can find for sourcing is this brief review, and I don't think that's enough on its own. QuietHere (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The" with band names (not a capitalization argument)

Don't worry — I'm not trying to rehash WP:THEBAND.

I've noticed a number of bands that appear to sometimes use "the" with their name and sometimes not. These include:

As far as I can tell, each of these poses a gray area. Reliable sources flip back and forth between using "the" kind of randomly — ie, sometimes they write "Pixies" and sometimes "the Pixies". So do the bands themselves. Pixies fans love to insist that it's "Pixies" and not "the Pixies", but the singer says "the Pixies" in at least some interviews, and then we have the compilation album Death to the Pixies to point at. (The) Beastie Boys angrily said, in an interview, that their band name doesn't use "the" — but this is kind of undone by the fact that they themselves say "the Beastie Boys" in their most famous song.

The only thing that bothers me here is that the prose of our articles on each of these acts flips back and forth between using "the". I would prefer to settle on one approach on a case-by-case basis, but I'm not sure how to decide each case. Do we go with the most common use based on sources? How much weight do we give album art, band interviews, official materials, etc? Popcornfud (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I think we would have to go by how the bands refer to themselves the majority of the time. Aside from Foo Fighters, these groups started in the 1980s, so we're contending with decades of reliable source writers/editors using "the" for reasons related, perhaps, to journalistic "best practice" or style guides. Just engaged with the issue at Cruzados. Caro7200 (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't forget WP:THEMUSIC which says When the word the is sometimes or consistently used at the beginning of a band's name, a redirect (or disambiguation) should be created with the alternative name (with or without "the").. Furthermore, WP:COMMONNAME says that if sources universally say something then use that terminology. This was previously (and painfully discussed) at Talk:Girls Like You. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When in doubt, if possible I visit the band's website if they are new and current enough to have one. Otherwise, I try and look at album covers. Sometimes you might find albums of different periods with or without "The", so in that case, go with the most current album as being their most recent thought process of labeling themselves. As Caro7200 stated, let the bands themselves decide how they want to be labeled. Mburrell (talk)

Uproxx and HipHopDX

Is there any conflict of interest with these websites given that they are now owned by Warner Music Group? It is worth a discussion about their ability to remain neutral and do they no longer represent independent media? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 16:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was able to find three previous discussions regarding uDiscover Music which is owned by UMG, I'd say the issue is the same here. It seems the consensus has been to use them with a touch of added caution especially around coverage of their respect labels' releases, and that makes sense to me. Certainly I would at least say that this should most likely not affect their previous coverage retroactively; if an asterisk is needed on HipHopDX's WP:RSMUSIC entry then it should probably be date-stamped for the time after the sale. QuietHere (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, correction, turns out the consensus was far less liberal than I thought. I seemed to remember a discussion regarding uDM from some time in the last year that leaned the way I described but perhaps I misremembered. I still stand by the retroactive part though, and I'm not convinced this should affect their coverage of non-WMG music. QuietHere (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
uDiscover seems to be more problematic as they seem to plug just their own artists. Whereas HipHopDx have at least done a huge piece on Beyoncé who is Sony and a rival artist. I think its one to watch. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Youngblood soundtrack

I may eventually start an article for the Youngblood soundtrack, by War. It's a fine little cult film, but the soundtrack has always been more notable, as reliable sources indicate (and not just in a mere discography way). My question is: If I do start an article, do I remove the infobox and tracklisting stuff, and just go with a bluelink? In general, would that be the "policy" for every new album article that arises from a "parent" article with that sort of embedded template stuff? Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A lot of film pages include the soundtrack as part of them. Unless the soundtrack received singles, music videos and lots of reviews indie of the film. It all depends, how much of a detailed page could be made. You should always include {{Infobox album}} regardless. It might be worth drafting in your userspace or sandbox first. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just going to add that the track listing in the film’s article probably needs to go per WP:FILMSCORE, but it would most likely be fine if you created a stand-alone article about the album. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Born in the U.S.A. Bruce Springsteen

Under "Legacy," the page says, "With Born in the U.S.A., Springsteen helped popularize American heartland rock in the mainstream, which allowed for greater success for recording artists such as John Mellencamp, Tom Petty, and Bob Seger..."

With respect, this is demonstrably false - and actually backward. By the time Springsteen released Born in the U.S.A. (1984):

-Bob Seger had released Beautiful Loser (2x Platinum), Night Moves (6x Platinum), Stranger in Town (6x Platinum), and Against the Wind (5x Platinum), and already had 10+ Top 10 hits -John Mellencamp had released American Fool (5x Platinum) and Uh-Huh (3x Platinum), and had 7 Top 10 hits -Tom Petty had released Damn the Torpedoes (3x Platinum) and Hard Promises (2x Platinum), and had 10 Top 10 hits.

Thus, it would seem that it was the three of THEM (particularly Seger, who is the "godfather" of "heartland rock") who allowed Springsteen's greater success, and not the other way around. 2603:7000:9A02:A200:449A:8ED5:2755:4612 (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you, but I also note that Perone's actual text doesn't say exactly the same thing as the sentence that it supports. And Farm Aid, that heartland rock warhorse, didn't begin until 1985, for example... Born in the USA did help popularize heartland rock as part of the mainstream 1984-MTV-MJ-Madonna-Prince cultural wave. Caro7200 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of the article needs rewritten honestly. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting post about Wikipedia citing Sputnik reviews

Here. Not sure what the implications ought to be for us, if any. Popcornfud (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And teenagers add content to Wikipedia which then gets quoted as "fact" by supposedly reliable and established media outlets as well... Richard3120 (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well the question at hand is if this post compromises our trust in Sputnik as a source, and while I can see the concern I'm not sure it does. The only disparaging done in that post is against the reviews themselves, and every writer is their own worst critic so that doesn't mean much. He doesn't say anything about Sputnik's editorial process, and if we have evidence that that process is good then surely it remains trustworthy. In all honesty, I've personally always gotten a vibe from Sputnik similar to what he's describing, but I trust my fellow editors that there's a good reason to have kept it around this long. It would be hilarious if this one blog post got the whole site removed from WP (though very sad for the site and their poor unfortunate SEO), but I'm not sure it comes to that on this alone. Unless we want to turn this into a new discussion on Sputnik's merit and the consensus flips the other way, of course. QuietHere (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha, amusing. Yeah, agree that we don't know enough. I've gotten the same vibe from Sputnik as well, and use it as a last resort--but that's partly because of the USERG part and the fact that it, uh, looks terrible. It's possible--but maybe not likely--that the site went through and reviewed the factual claims in the staff reviews. There's also the motives of this writer; there's a little bit of "Tee hee, ain't I a scamp?" in this. This is also part of a larger "problem", maybe (although not for articles like Thriller): pulling info/quote from listed RS to get another ref, rather than because it's a particularly useful/enlightening piece of info/criticism. But I'm sure that, among the however many "staff" reviews on Sputnik, there are helpful/insightful points that haven't been brought up by other reviews/critics... Caro7200 (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was amused by it as well, hence my flippant comment. But being serious, I don't think it should affect Wikipedia's decision to use SputnikMusic. There are plenty of now well-respected UK music journalists who have stated in their autobiographies that when they started at Smash Hits or NME or wherever, they didn't have a clue what they were doing and that their writing was equally terrible. Some have even admitted making up interview quotes or album reviews without listening to the album in question. But... they were working for a reliable publication and with a proper editorial team, so if the editor saw fit to publish their ramblings at the time, then it's not Wikipedia's place to make a decision on the quality of their writing. Half the content at Billboard, Rolling Stone and NME these days is SEO spam, often uploaded by the artist's label or their management, so at least we know the writing at SputnikMusic was independent. Richard3120 (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Worth noting that an editor decided to remove the quote based on this blog post, but it doesn't sound like any of us here would agree with that move. Or have I misread that? Pinging @FranCapoArg to let them know about the discussion relevant to their edit. QuietHere (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for pinging me @QuietHere! Interesting back and forth. I agree that being a teenager, or that working for a well resourced publication doesn't 100% cover a source's credibility (or the writer's). I do think that while in this review he is *right* and captures the common understanding of the record— I doubt many people would suggest Thriller is not a GOAT album — but if a journalist questions their motives, it raises questions of the validity of the work entirely (Not their oeuvre). That's not to say all his reviews are bad, and definitely as far as art, just cause a magazine said so, doesn't mean much. Finally, I think that the source writer himself saying that he is an illegitimate source, makes the source illegitimate. Hope that clarifies my thinking. Let me know what you all think!!! FranCapoArg (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never personally been a fan of Sputnik. But it does make it clear on their website where there is user reviews and where its a more editorial review. They do have a list of staff contributors but it doesn't actually give you much information on who the staff are. I'm beginning to wonder why it was decided that Sputnik is reliable? It is described as a forum... >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Age certainly shouldn't be a factor in considering the writer's credibility – Caitlin Moran was 16 when she started writing for Melody Maker, and she's now one of the UK's most widely-loved journalists/authors. Richard3120 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree 100% @Richard3120. I don't see this as a question about Sputnik itself, either. To reiterate, my main argument here is certainly that the source writer themselves is saying that they are an illegitimate source on this topic. Perhaps if they're not saying it directly even, they are implying it in the writing of the piece.
Separate question, how are zines seen as far as sourcing legitimacy? FranCapoArg (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey there, original author here. My intention here was not to cast a negative light on all of Sputnik. I certainly think we were core contributors to the musical discourse for a time, especially in the more punk, alt, and metal subgenres. For example, with Thrice's Vheissu, if you're going to include Absolutepunk and, you should absolutely be including Sputnik in that conversation. We had equal or greater audiences for that music at that time.
Where I would hesitate to use Sputnik as a source is more in the vein I discussed in my original post, where Sputnik is quoted and sourced at the level of some of the most famous music critics of the 21st century. I'm honored, but really, we're not important enough to be quoted about Thriller, even in an reappraisal section.
RE: our age, I was among the younger of the staff, and my situation where I had a whole lot of reviews written as a user before I became staff is fairly unique. Unfortunately, in retrospect, there's no way to distinguish between reviews I wrote before I was on staff versus after. So while my Thriller review is not of the quality expected of Sputnik's staff, the database treats it as a staff review since I was given that user role in the database.
Hope this helps. All of this happened over a decade ago, but I can try to provide more context if you'd like. Tylrfishr (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Tyler, I was hoping you'd see this thread, and thanks for your contribution. Interesting that you say that the site makes no distinction as to when a user makes the leap to being a staff member. So it's quite possible that although Wikipedia has decide to only use staff reviews from Sputnikmusic and not user reviews, in reality we could be including user reviews anyway, just that we don't realise it because all of them have now been upgraded to "staff". Richard3120 (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TylrFishr: Me and a close collaborator (actually the one who wrote the majority of what you see on Vheissu as it turns out) were just talking about comparisons of Sputnik to those websites on Discord earlier. At least, to that front, we have found a list of contributors from those websites who have established themselves elsewhere. I see what you're saying on the importance thing and totally agree, actually - people griped at us for using Punknews on Tell All Your Friends as a featured article, but we were able to sway the crowd there given it is a record with much less attention. Nevertheless, people on Wikipedia often tend to want to choose a simpler solution of whether a publication is suitable or unsuitable to avoid confusing, case-by-case examinations, but there are exceptions where it's happened; I think what you are trying to get at is whether Sputnik is due weight in a given article - does that sound right? Also if you know any key contributors from Sputnik that have gone on to work in professional publications please let me know! dannymusiceditor oops 03:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, due weight sounds like the right principle here. To ignore Sputnik would be to ignore a publication that record labels, festival organizers, concert promoters, band managers, etc. were taking seriously. We were regularly given promo copies with the expectation of a review, press passes to major concerts and festivals, interviews with artists, etc.
I think the case of you accidentally grabbing what was a user review would end up being a pretty rare occurrence. Writers are promoted to staff largely because they're already writing staff-quality work. I happened to write a lot of stuff beforehand because I started writing on Sputnik at a very young age, and that early work isn't very good. That's unusual, though.
As far as writers who went on to professional publications: I did! I wrote for PopMatters for a number of years. I also had copyediting roles at Pitchfork and AV Club. You won't find my byline at Pitchfork/AV Club, but I received those jobs largely on the strength of my musical knowledge demonstrated in my work at Sputnik. I also believe Tyler Munro went on to write for what was known as AUX in Canada, and is now A.Side. There are also a few others I know who work in journalistic organizations, though not in a music-based role. Tylrfishr (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for jumping in@Tylrfishr — could you clarify if my understanding of your blog post is accurate? Are you saying that this particular review is not up to par? FranCapoArg (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FranCapoArg: Certainly I feel my writing in that review is pretty poor, but I also don't think that's the point in this case. For an album like Thriller, I just don't believe Sputnik is a worthy source, or has "due weight", to assess its critical reappraisal. It is a rare album that I think Sputnik can't weigh in on reliably, but Thriller is one of them, especially if you're only going to quote Erlewine, Pareles and me. No one on Sputnik, myself included, has the cultural cachet to stand up to those two.
I recognize that it's hard to distill this to a general principle that could be used across music pages on Wikipedia. On Sputnik, we could write about any album we wanted, but we definitely had our wheelhouse. To bring back Absolutepunk/, you would obviously never quote them in regards to critical reappraisal for Thriller, but you probably would for something like Green Day's Dookie. Sputnik similarly has its own eras and genres where it has real weight. I don't think I could write down strict parameters as to what those are, but I can safely say Thriller is not part of it. Does that make sense? Tylrfishr (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are there any other notable Sputnik quotes that you think should be pulled? The other ones you named in your blog post? QuietHere (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I'm not going to look up every time Sputnik's been quoted. I've seen a lot, either from my work or others. I do think almost all of it is valid, the other ones mentioned in the blog post included. Thriller stuck out to me as particularly off. Tylrfishr (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine, just figured I should ask! Good to know the others in the blog post clear, that's already helpful enough. QuietHere (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Tylrfishr — I suppose it would be as if we included a review of the Godfather II from Letterboxd? FranCapoArg (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha, yeah, kind of. I would say a staff review is a little more elevated than Letterboxd, but it's a similar type of disconnect. Tylrfishr (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK! thank you. I'll leave it to the group and any admins to make larger decisions about Sputnik. I'm neither warm or cold. But I do stand by my original decision to cut Tyler's quote from the article. As he said, the source and the claim lack due weight in context of Thriller's importance and around other reviewers like Jon Pareles.
Happy to keep talking this through. FranCapoArg (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MusicforthePeople: courtesy ping dannymusiceditor oops 04:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is there anything from this discussion that should alter the entry for Sputnikmusic at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources? For instance, noting the concern that you should evaluate whether Sputnikmusic's reviews constitute due weight or etc? Currently the "limitations" entry just says "Use staff and emeritus reviews only". Endwise (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The blog post by Tylrfishr states: Eventually, Sputnik grew enough of an audience that the admins who ran the site decided to organize a little bit. They put together the site's first "staff writers", and I was selected to be on the staff. Do we know exactly when this happened? Maybe a cut-off date could also be used, something like "reviews before x year/date are generally unreliable" given that there were no staff reviewers at the time? Alduin2000 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion request

Hi! I’d like to request someone to put in a deletion nomination for [Safe Rock and Roll Sucks] by Balzac. I couldn’t find any reliable information about this article on the internet. I think nominating an article for deletion is an administrative task only, but if I can do it, then please tell me the process in Layman’s terms. KevinML (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone is allowed to nominate articles for deletion, it's just the actual act of deleting an article that is reserved for Admin.
Read WP:BEFORE for a lot of good information about approaching this, and WP:AFDHOWTO for guidance on how to start an actual deletion discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consumable Online

I'd like to start a discussion on adding American publication Consumable Online to the list of sources. Scott Williams founded Consumable initially as a print publication in 1993 to cover music in New Jersey and New York, running for two issues.[102] Bob Gajarsky had previously written for his college newspaper and came across the publication in August 1993, and at his suggestion switched from print to online. Williams departed in 1995, leaving Gajarsky as its sole editor.[103] Lang Whitaker became the managing editor from March 1999 until its closing in August 2000.[104][105] Gajarsky's linkedin states that it was apparently the "Internet's first regular collaborative music reviews publication". It ran for 215 issues, recieving pieces from 30 members of staff around the world. The site was named (per linkedin) "Best of the Net" by The Mining Company, ranked within the "Top 100 Websites" according to Internetsuccess, given 4/4 stars by NetGuide, which calls the site the "no-frills alternative music authority", and has the "Internet Guide Award" from[106]

Gajarsky worked with major label "publicity departments to educate about ways they could better utilize the Internet for music" (per linkedin). In the early days of the site, he wrote a music guide to Greenwich Village for[107] and wrote some articles for Baseball Prospectus. Alongside this, he claims to have written liner notes for music releases, but I couldn't dig up anything in that regard. The site was hosted by WestNet Internet Services, based in Westchester county, New York. Some reviews were reprinted on artists' websites, such as a Meat Loaf Best Of on Jim Steinman's official website[108] and Spiders by Space on their website.[109] The website has been used as a source in twobooks, and was given a blurb in the book Net Music. Past issues of the site were available through Delphi at one point.[110] The following writing credentials, except where noted, are referenced here:

Thoughts? MusicforthePeople (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Considering the experience of their editors mentioned above it would seem to be a reliable source worthy of inclusion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless someone else proposes some strong counter-argument for it not being reliable, I support listing it on the reliable list. Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] staff picks = staff reviews?

I'm doing a GA review of Won (As Friends Rust album), and this review is used as a source. WP:A/S says to use staff reviews only; does the "staff pick" tag imply a staff review? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mike Christie: Yes – Aubin Paul is the site's founder. Another example: This review by John Gentile, who is on the list of staff, also mentions being a "staff pick". MusicforthePeople (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't say so – I'd say it implies that the majority of the PunkNews staff think it's a record they would recommend to their readers, but that's unconnected to the reviewer's individual opinion. I wouldn't say that they are endorsing the review, it's the reviewer being staff that makes it a staff review. Richard3120 (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Is there another way to tell someone's on staff, or was at the time of the review, than the "staff review" tag? Obviously in this case this one is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mike Christie: there's a list of writers at, but it's not clear whether apart from the first five people, the rest are/were staff or simply unpaid contributors. Richard3120 (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again. As it turns out I failed the review with a long list of source issues, but I suggested the nominator come to this page to get more feedback on what's reliable for album articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tidal's listing of co-producers

While editing the article for Demi Lovato's recent album Holy Fvck, I made an edit to indicate that two of the listed producers are actually credited as co-producers (see Tidal listing). That information came from Tidal, which regularly lists people credited as co-producers and additional producers in the primary "Producer" section.

Fellow editor Lil-unique1 disagreed with my reading of this information, and the reasoning they provided was very fair (see here. However, I find it very, very highly unlikely that any individual would be credited as both a co-producer and a producer for an album. Whenever I have added personnel or track listing sections in the past, I've always based the production credit on the "lesser" of the two. If they are credited as a producer and an additional producer, that seems like a clear indication that they are only credited as an additional producer.

The alternative to that reading would be to credit all of these individuals as both producer and co/additional producer, which is not an ideal solution in my opinion. I think this is something that would benefit from a widespread consensus that can be added to WP:PERSONNEL. That way, we can figure out how to handle these kinds of situations in the future. Sock (tock talk) 19:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for opening conversation @Sock. I personally haven't come across this issue before, however this album is slightly unusual in that the credits aren't included in the album booklet. The booklet says to visit but that page doesn't seem to exist on her website so we can't verify this. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've had the same instinct of defaulting to the "lesser" credit in multiple instances. I suspect some people see the producers list on Tidal as a place to list all producers, no matter what "co-" or "additional" qualifiers, and that's why they appear in both, but this is just speculation on my part. Unfortunately Tidal's credits are clearly not standardised at all so problems like this are easy to come across. I would personally stick with doing it the same way just because it seems like a reasonable read to me, but of course if Lil-unique1 disagrees then that's why we look for consensus. QuietHere (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean to be fair - it is probably logical that Sorrells and Nice are just co-producers so if there's a universal thought this is the case then happy to go with that. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Fader and Fader Label

So earlier today I saw this article about an album released by the record label Fader Label. What immediately struck me is that the article is from the publication The Fader, and for those who haven't already guessed it, yes the two are connected. Both were founded by the same guys and are part of the same media organisation ("It is owned by The Fader Media group, which also includes its website,, as well as Fader films, Fader Label and Fader TV" from The Fader). And given past discussions such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 65#Uproxx and HipHopDX concerning these record label/publication corporate relationships leading to potential conflicts of interest, I figured I should point this one out as well. Is anyone aware of any reason why this wouldn't be a CoI? QuietHere (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Fader (publication) talking about an artist's release on the Fader Music label wouldn't be appropriate for use on here. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lil-unique1: I agree, although fortunately they appear to have refrained from reviewing any of their own records. But they are being used on some articles as a source to announce the release of the album, or to verify its release date – would this be permissible, do you think? Richard3120 (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is as long as said source is not the only "reliable source" or coverage that an artist or topic has received. UDiscover by Universal Music was in a similar situation - there was a string of non-charting releases by Finneas covered by UDiscover, almost all exclusively being nominated for GA and being sourced directly from uDiscover. I'd want to avoid that situations again. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stylisation/discrepancy in titling, and natural disambiguation

Drawing attention to the move request at Talk:Outside (David Bowie album)#Requested move 2 September 2022 (proposed move to 1. Outside), which could have ramifications in other places across the project. Cf WP:NATURAL. U-Mos (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer review request for Missundaztood

Hi there! I have opened a peer review for Missundaztood, article that had already passed a GA review and received a CE, in hopes to take it to FAC. The review has been open for some time, but with no comments. So I'm asking here if anyone would be willing to take a look and give their feedback on the article. I'd be very grateful. – TabooMatters94 (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Woman I've Become (EP)#Requested move 5 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Songs I Wrote with Amy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Songs I Wrote with Amy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs I Wrote with Amy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

QuietHere (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forbes question

Hey all. I got this Forbes article here that was written by a contributor (not staff) so that would mean it's unreliable per WP:NOTRSMUSIC. However, on the contributor's page, David Chui states he has written for Rolling Stone, The New York Times, Newsweek, Billboard, Pitchfork, Time Out New York, Paste, The Quietus, along others, which are all viewed here as reliable. So would this Forbes article from him be reliable then if he has written for a slew of established publications? Thanks. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you not use the 33 1/3 book? Those are full of typos, but are generally respected as RS. Or did you need something from this specific article? Caro7200 (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been using that but I wanted a source that talks about it specifically. I got a PopMatters article but I was just wondering if the Forbes one would work too. If not the PM one will do. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Apple Music a reliable source?

Hello. I have noticed that there were genres that were covered by references sourced from Apple Music or iTunes for that matter. Does that count as a reliable source, or is it user-generated or a primary source? HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, retail/database listings are almost always not used for things like genre. Apple Music would fall into that category as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shout at the Devil cover art

Is anyone from WP:ALBUM able to determine whether the alternative cover art for the album Shout at the Devil was also the cover art for the single "Shout at the Devil (song)"? A user named Ytzesza keeps trying to add File:ShoutattheDevilCD2.jpg to main infobox about the song, but keeps getting reverted by a bot. The bot's removing of the file is being done because no non-free use rationale is provided for the single's article (see User talk:JJMC89#bot won’t stop removing images for more on that), and this is a fairly simple fix as long as the single's cover art is the same. The song is from 1983, so I'm not sure how to verify that the single actually used that cover art; so, I thought I'd ask about this here at WT:ALBUM. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marchjuly: Since the song was never released as a single, I think it does not have cover art. --Muhandes (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a demo single which was released in 2008 according to RateYourMusic. Gonna need another source for that date but at least we know there's a single that exists. Perhaps that's what Ytzesza is basing their addition on. QuietHere (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marchjuly @Muhandes According to iTunes, that cover was used for the digital release of the Demo Version of the song. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You got me there. --Muhandes (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd have to ask if the song was notable enough for a separate article anyway – most of what the article says is either unsourced or already included in the album's article, and I don't think a minor placing on a Billboard chart is enough to pass WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Starting an article for 'Pep' album by Lights

Hi, I've been meaning to start an article for the album PEP by Lights. i have a very basic outline of it on my sandbox (just the section names and an album infobox) but i need some help. can i post it here? or should i create it as a draft? Melodies1917 (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's up to you, but if you just link to your sandbox or draft of info here, people can check it out. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, creating it as a draft would probably be the best idea, because it will definitely pass WP:NALBUM... there are enough reviews from reliable sources: [131], [132], [133], [134]. Richard3120 (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you! here it is. . i will start a draft too. but welcome feedback here before i do. Melodies1917 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sergecross73 and Richard3120: So i went to start the draft and this one came up, it was started in July by Poppstar. i added Wikiproject tags and the Reception section. it looks good to me, feel free to check it out. hopefully it will be approved soon. Melodies1917 (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Melodies1917: I made some minor changes, mainly to clarify the part talking about the "aforementioned comic" as it wasn't clear, stylization, and MOS:LQ... on Wikipedia inverted commas for the title come before the comma, which I know isn't normal in US English, but always looks hella weird to me as a Brit... I mean, the comma isn't part of the title so why does it go inside quotation marks? Anyway, you could also add the three reviews I've linked to above, which would definitely establish the album's notability. Richard3120 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

redirect question

I should probably know this, but ... if a redirect for an album title simply exists as a redirect to a band article (just a redirect; there was never any prose), can I "adopt" that redirect for an article about a different album? For example, I'm considering an article for Good Company, by Nat Adderley. Good Company exists as a redirect to the band the Dead South.

Similarly, I started an article for Bringin' It All Back Home (Johnny Copeland album); a redirect already existed for the almost-identical Dylan album. I left that, as the Dylan album will attract 1,000X the number of eyes, but wasn't sure if that actually conforms to policy. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I do this sometimes, on the reasoning that, if it doesn't even have its own article, it's probably not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There are some examples where that's not true (Murica (album) is still there despite Murica being a redirect) but generally it checks out. Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that makes sense to me as well – no point keeping the redirect for an album article that looks like it will never exist, you could just add a hatnote to the top of the Nat Adderley album article, "for the Dead South album, see the Dead South", and that should cover all bases for now. I guess the Johnny Copeland album may not need the disambiguation because of the one letter difference, but I think you did right to add the disambiguator, it can always be discussed for renaming at a later date. Richard3120 (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on this I started a move request for the Johnny Copeland album. No clue if it'll stick or not but worth a try.
And on topic, I'll back up what Serge and Richard said. I've done the same before myself at "High Plains Drifter", formerly a redirect based on a Beastie Boys song but now an article for a notable Kirk Hammett single with a hatnote. Notability takes priority for article titles so if you've got a more notable subject for a given title then you should be fine to usurp it, especially if it's a redirect. And if in doubt, you can make the article under a disambiguated title (like you did with the Johnny Copeland) and request a move after, and let consensus decide which goes where. QuietHere (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] year-end lists and length of Critics list tables in Reception/Accolades sections

Can someone tell me whether Genius's year-end lists are worth including in the tables under Critical reception or Accolades sections? I came across them on a handful of kpop song/album articles and removed them from one page, but would like to be sure before I erroneously start mass-removing. So far, all mentions are sourced directly from either Genius's Kor website or twitter. Also, "Love It If We Made It" has one of the longest Accolades tables I've ever seen on Wikipedia, in addition to also having Genius in its table. I'm pretty sure I recall a recentish discussion that concluded only 10 lists max, or something along those lines, should be in a table. Has that since been walked-back? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So far as I'm aware the 10-limit for accolades tables is still consensus-approved. It certainly should be, at least in my opinion. And I hope it stays in consensus 'cause that table is ridiculous and needs a huge amount of trimming. Might be able to save some entries by separating year- and decade-end lists but otherwise I can't imagine we're in too much need for the lists from 411Mania, the Diamondback, or Vectis Radio, just as examples.
As for Genius, I think that goes back to the larger question of their editorial section's general reliability which I do believe has come up before but I'm not sure what conclusion, if any, was drawn from that. I would say that, if it is indeed reliable, then there's probably no problem including those lists, though I certainly wouldn't prioritise them over better-established publications if those are available. QuietHere (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] is reliable for interviews etc but cannot be used to source tracklistings or anything like that as the latter is user generated like discogs. I think there are other/better sources for critics lists and the ten-limit for lists still applies. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 12:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, when I say "editorial section" that is excluding the lyrics pages and other clearly USERG content of the site, and specifically referring to news articles (such as this one) which are visible on their front page. That article is credited to a staff member (there's a visible "staff" on their profile). I believe there's also a page with all the editors listed but I can't find it right now. It's clear to me they're taking the news business seriously and that may be valuable to us so that's what I'm concerned about regarding their potential reliability. QuietHere (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the Critical reception section for one of the k-pop articles in question. The Genius Korea list is this one, though the tweet calls it a "chart". It's not a Critics list of any kind and tbh I don't see why it is worth including. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on that tweet, I don't either – it doesn't tell us what it is a top ten of... Genius critics' opinions? Most downloaded tracks? Most viewed song lyrics on Genius? You can't say it belongs in a year-end list without knowing if it's a critics' list or not. Richard3120 (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding "Love It If We Made It", the overall Guardian ranking is there, we don't need the ranking of each of the individual Guardian journalists as well... similar to WP:USCHARTS, they're already subcomponents of the main chart, as it were. Richard3120 (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To the best of my knowledge (i.e. Twt/Google searches), the list/"chart" pertains to the songs with the most-viewed lyrics by users on the site for the year. I went ahead and removed it. Wrt to the LIIWMI table, I hadn't checked the Genius ref to see if it was written by staff when I made my post, so if it's acceptable then cool. I can't trim the list myself because I'm only familiar with a handful of those publications, but now that it's been brought to the Project's attention I'm sure one/some of the more knowledgeable editors will take care of it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Carlobunnie – if that's the case, I personally wouldn't consider "fourth-most viewed lyrics on the Genius website" as an accolade worthy of mention either. Richard3120 (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Willow Smith album discussion

There's a discussion on what to do with Willow Smith's album Coping Mechanism (album) happening here. Input would be appreciated. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rock 'n Load

I've always been suspicious of this site but haven't bothered to raise those suspicions 'til now since it's mostly been a non-issue, but at this point I think it's better to ask just to clear the air. I'm not the first to say anything (see here) but nothing came of that brief discussion and I haven't seen anything else on the subject. The site is in use on 202 pages currently.

Their articles about album announcements (e.g.) have always given me the vibe of glorified ad copy. I clicked through a couple dozen reviews only to see "Page not found" every time, and those are links from their own directory which I take as an especially bad sign. The one review I could get access to doesn't list a writer, consists of just a few short paragraphs, and then quickly transitions into more ad copy. One of the paragraphs in the review even starts talking about how you just have to see this band live which has nothing to do with the album and sounds like something I'd love to see written about my band if my record label had paid that website to write about me. Oh, and for a fun added bonus, the band's article cites Rock 'n Load for its album announcement which, and try to be shocked by this one, is another "Page not found".

I've seen no staff page, no bylines, none of the usual signifiers of a reliable source. They present themselves like one in style, but in substance this feels much closer to Shore Fire Media than anything on WP:RSMUSIC. In fact, this feels like a shoo-in for a WP:NOTRSMUSIC listing to me. Thoughts? QuietHere (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My experience has been similar. I've come across it in the past when source-hunting for various rock music related articles. I've never done a deep dive, but I've generally try to avoid it, as it gives off real "amateur fan blog" vibes. I've never bothered bringing it up here because I don't tend to see it be added to article's I watch over, but its used in hundreds of pages, then I agree its good to review it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This editor thinks adding Anthony Fantano is an reliable source ignoring the fact there was four discussions back in 2014, 2017, 2017 (2), and 2021, respectively, regarding this person. Keep in mind that the article is currently being reviewed for good article status. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the 2021 RfC, the rough consensus was that "Fantano is considered to be an established subject-matter expert as it pertains to music reviews and that that these reviews may be used in an article as attributed opinion". I used Fantano in the article only in the critical reception section as an attributed opinion. You yourself voted "yes" in that RfC, writing "Anthony Fantano is a well-known music critic and his reviews should not be ignored". Whether or not you changed your mind, the previous consensus reached in that RfC is not moot. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TheAmazingPeanuts has removed the source 3 times, and told me in an edit summary to "Stop ignoring the past discussions at WP:ALBUMAVOID". Unusually, they are not responding to my points; I'm just following what the consensus is listed at on WP:RSP per the RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PerfectSoundWhatever: My mind have changed since then. Anthony Fantano's reviews still needs to be supported by a third-party source not YouTube, which is also an unreliable source (see WP:USERG). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Requiring a third-party source is not what the RfC resulted with. Your personal opinion does not outweigh consensus. Edit warring over this is silly when the precedent is clear-cut. Pinging (GA reviewer) @Shaidar cuebiyar: since they are the only other editor to have spent time with this article, and they may have an opinion on the matter to help reach consensus. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PerfectSoundWhatever: I have reverted my edit but my point still stands. Anthony Fantano is still considered as an unreliable source by WP:ALBUMAVOID. Why are we giving this article a pass? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fantano's entry in WP:ALBUMAVOID does not consider Fantano unreliable. I've already linked to the RfC, RSP, and quoted it twice, so this is beginning to feel like WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I will not reply further since I've already stated my points. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAmazingPeanuts PSW is correct about the language of those past RfCs which are also reflected in the Fantano WP:RSMUSIC entry, and you've apparently already run into the WP:3RR wall so if you really think that consensus is wrong then you're gonna have to make your case in another RfC (can't wait for another month full of that). QuietHere (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PerfectSoundWhatever and TheAmazingPeanuts: I was pinged to provide my opinion on TheNeedleDrop/Fantano's usage in Coin Coin Chapter Three: River Run Thee, since I am currently reviewing the article for GA status. I was unaware of the contentious nature of that source and have not read all of the various discussions by editors about it. What I have read, however, leads me to accept this source's usage for "review only" purposes in this article and to be cited sparingly, at that. I make no determination on the source's validity for other WP articles. I thank both editors for their various opinions above and elsewhere on this matter you are both to be applauded.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminding editors that they need to be following WP:BRD regardless. Stop reverting. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, I agree, was not planning on reverting past twice. Peanuts has now self-reverted so hopefully the dispute is resolved. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have started a RfC at the article's talk page. Sorry for reverting. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]