Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68→Archive 70

First week sales question

I came across a website of Elliot Wolff’s regarding Paula Abdul’s third studio album Head over Heels stating the album — “peaked at number 18 on the Billboard 200 and sold less than 200,000 copies”. Now I’m wondering if this means first week sales in the US? I’m guessing it seems rather high for an album released in 1995. Or I’m assuming it means worldwide first week sales? Or if it even is referring to first week sales at all? Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. [1] Pillowdelight (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I would imagine that's total sales of the album in the US, from 1995 to the present date. In any case, it isn't clear and the source isn't reliable. Richard3120 (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
@Pillowdelight: just to expand on that, I've looked up the issue of Billboard for the week that Head over Heels entered the Billboard 200 (July 1, 1995). On page 120 of that issue, it says the no. 1 and no. 2 albums that week sold 170,000 and just under 150,000 copies, respectively. So no, Head over Heels definitely didn't sell 200,000 in its first week... if I had to guess, I'd say its first-week sales were around 20,000, but of course this is total original research on my part. I'm pretty convinced that my original guess above is correct, <200,000 refers to the total number of copies sold in the US in the 27 years since its release. Richard3120 (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts @Richard3120: as I’ve been looking for a while now on the albums first week sales and this was the only one I came across regarding sales. I don’t know if I would say it sold 20,000 first week though haha, I came across CrazySexyCool page on here although it was released in 1994 it debuted at number 15 with first week sales of 77,500. So I’m assuming Head over Heels most likely debuted with 50,000-75,000. But obviously this is an educated guess. Pillowdelight (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
You may well be right, I'm no expert on the US charts. I do know the album sold well below expectations. It may have a gold certification for 500,000 shipments, but that doesn't necessarily mean 500,000 sales... it's likely that her record company sent out half a million copies to record stores, confidently expecting a repeat of the multi-platinum success of her first two albums, and 300,000 copies were left unsold in the shops. Richard3120 (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Project page for sources mischaracterizes a Wikipedia guideline

​ This statement on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources is misleading and should be changed:

Per Wikipedia's guideline on user-generated sources, websites with user-generated content should never be used as sources since they have little or no editorial oversight.

This is not what the indicated guideline says. At least two possible remedies would be appropriate to address this issue:

  1. Change the statement to reflect what the guideline actually says: user-generated sources are generally unacceptable (emphasis added) rather than that they "never be used" OR
  2. Properly attribute this guidance to wherever the stricter "never be used" guidance actually comes from: presumably a local consensus documented somewhere as part of this project.

As the statement reads now it inaccurately attributes the "never be used" guidance to a Wikipedia guideline. Not only does it mischaracterize the guideline, the choice of the word "never" directly conflicts with the fifth pillar of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. --N8wilson 🔔 13:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought "generally unacceptable" was too soft, and would lead to people to always argue their suggested source be the exception. I don't particularly know the scenario where we allow straight up USERG content, but if that's the wording USERG itself uses, then I guess I have no grounds to object. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Gonna second the "too soft" here, but personally this seems more like the language at USERG might need adjusting rather than here. Has there been a strong consensus formed around that specific phrasing? If not, perhaps one of us here should start an AfC about it. QuietHere (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Didn't find any previous discussion on it so I went ahead and started one myself. QuietHere (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I commented there too. I'm interested to see if we're not thinking of something, or if it's something that could use altering. I don't particularly believe 5P is keeping us from talking in absolutes.There's wording like "never" or flat out "do not" present in things like WP:BLPSPS or WP:NLT, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes - even 5P5 is not a firm rule and has exceptions to itself. BLP and NLT are examples where absolutes are necessary and helpful but the spirit of 5P5 is to keep us from making hard and fast rules where they are not beneficial to the goals of WP. This is one of those areas. Broad guidance on sourcing across WP encourages contextual discussion. Strict guidance like "never" shuts down such discussions. Will more people claim "their source" is the exception to "generally unreliable"? Absolutely. But that's the whole point - there are exceptions however few and far between they may be. We should be leaving that door for discussion open. Closing it is the part that conflicts with 5P5. --N8wilson 🔔 16:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
That's...not an argument I've run into much in my time of writing MOS and Wikiproject-level consensus with editors over the years... Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Single-entry tables

When a song/album charts in just one territory (wkly), a Charts section isn't usually created for that. If someone does, it gets rewritten as prose or recommended that such be done. If that same release also enters one mthly and/or YE chart, does that then make having 3 respective single-entry tables okay? Or should those entries be relegated to the prose of the Comm/Chart Perf section instead? I have both created (for the aforementioned mthly/YE charts and Certs) and removed (wkly charting only) single-entry tables on WP, and have seen other editors do the same, but sometimes find myself questioning the inconsistency. Am I just overthinking this? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Country Universe

I'm reviewing Ty Herndon for GA and would like to get feedback on the reliability of countryuniverse.net. Their about page gives staff bios; the particular review in question is here, by Kevin John Coyne. His bio says he's an educator. Pinging TenPoundHammer, the nominator. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Country Universe has been accepted in previous GAs such as Pam Tillis. The site has credited editors (it's my understanding that both Coyne and former Slant Magazine writer Jonathan Keefe are editors), and other contributors such as Alanna Conaway have contributed to reliable sources like Billboard and Country Weekly. For these reasons, Country Universe has been accepted in the past when citing reviews. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Caldorwards4:, @Jax 0677:, @Martin4647:, @Hog Farm:, @ChrisTofu11961:, @Kaleeb18:. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    It's good they have an established staff and writers who are professional writers...though many of the outlets they mention (outside of Slant) I've never heard of, so it's hard to see if they've written for other RS for me personally. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    Roughstock has been accepted in the past (including apparently this very GA) due to the site having a credited editor (Matt Bjorke) and regular writing staff. Engine 145 and The 9513, though both defunct, were also considered reputable due to having editors and a regular writing team. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    I accepted Roughstock because their staff page implies these are full time professional positions. I also see here that they are part of Cherimedia, which is owned by Warner Music Group. Some sort of corporate ownership structure for Country would help, but for me the main problem is that the bio for Coyne says his full time job is not writer or editor, so he's apparently a fan, which means either the platform he's on needs to show there is editorial control or he himself needs to have good writing credits elsewhere. I agree that reviews by Keefe on Country Universe would be OK -- you found this evidence of Keefe's work as a journalist. But Country Universe describes itself as a blog, not as a magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    Coyne is credited as editor in some individual pieces on CU. I thought having a credited editor and regular writing staff were enough? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    If this were magazine format and he was either a permanent employee or a professional journalist, yes, that would be enough. But it says it's a blog, and it says he's not a journalist, so it looks to me as if this is a group of like minded people some of who are professional and some of whom aren't, who run a blog because they like doing so. For the professionals I'm OK with it as a reliable source; for non-professionals I don't see how it can be treated as one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Country Universe is written by professional writers, some of which have degrees in journalism and experience with staff writing. It might be a blog format but it does not operate like a traditional blog. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:On Down the Line (album)#Requested move 29 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:On Down the Line (album)#Requested move 29 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Track listing template

With all the controversy going on at OK Computer regarding the track listing template, I'm wondering if it would be best to start a discussion regarding its use (i.e. "less complicated situations). I'm on mobile atm so I can't give all my thoughts on the matter but I'd be interested to hear what others think. Tkbrett – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the track listing template makes for worse readability in simple situations. My monitor isn't that big but I sometimes find it difficult to tell which time is for which song. I imagine it's worse of larger monitors. I've seen the template used to better effect when the width is limited (e.g. A Collection of Beatles Oldies and Moondance).
It tends to be anonymous or new editors that force the template on pages. In my younger and more vulnerable days, it was one of many stupid things I used to do (e.g. [2] and [3]). (Some editors may argue I'm still occasionally doing dumb crap). I did it because I incorrectly thought it was a part of the MOS, even though the opposite is actually true (WP:TRACKLISTING). Other arguments I've seen offered for using it are that every other article does it (i.e. WP:OTHERCONTENT-type arguments) and that it looks aesthetically pleasing compared to the simpler format, which I think is both untrue but also a weird reason to make readability worse. Tkbrett (✉) 15:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
One thing I do like about the template is that it keeps the runtimes in the same place (I.e. in a straight line), but like you said when it encompasses the whole page sometimes it's hard to tell which goes with which. I've recently had quarrels on Elvis Costello pages regarding it and I decided to just leave it be (with the template intact) as I got tired of arguing. I think we can all agree though that having users that believe whatever this nonsense is is just plain silly. Idk when the last discussion regarding the template was but I'm wondering if a new Rfc shouldn't be started to get outside input. JG66 what do you think? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I never use the track listing template and fine it an eyesore when it comes to simple track listings, mostly again because of how far apart the lengths usually are from the track titles. As for them being applied at random, there's a CD age, ten track album with simple formatting that I saw changed to four vinyl-side track listing templates of two to three tracks each. No explanation was given either. Maddening.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. In this day and age where there's ten writers and producers for every song on an album the template is basically required, but in the old days when one person wrote entire albums it feels useless. If anything, I'd say a good compromise would be to limit the width on the templates so the track times don't appear so far apart. Then again, when Tk did that once I recall saying it looked weird... AGGH. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I would not have said that I am an anonymous or inexperienced editor, and I have used the track listing template for every album article I have created, and I have to say it is my preference to see track titles and track times in a table format. I agree that the stretch between song and time is extreme on the track listing template listing of OK Computer, but since each line alternates between white and grey, it is easy to follow over. The current listing of tracks and times, where the times are not all in one column, looks aesthetically wrong to me. It would be nice if the template table width could have an option to restrict the width, or if a list table was developed for the track listing, but I will be one voting to keep and recommend usage of the template until a better alternative is developed, something better than what is being used on OK Computer right now. Mburrell (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Another hater here of the template. It's useful when you have multiple writers/producers (so I don't object to its use on R&B and hip hop albums) or compilation albums to list the original album the songs appeared on. But when the writer(s) and producers are essentially the same for the whole album (true for most rock albums), I don't see the point, and find it acively distracting on a PC or laptop to see the huge space between the track titles and the track times. Richard3120 (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
As a regular user of the template, I'll at least say this for it. I think it's a simple, intuitive way to organise information which doesn't require me to come up with my own style of track list and I enjoy that convenience. Sure, I can understand being bothered by the empty space, but I find that a minor inconvenience at worst. And if it's so bad for everyone else, perhaps the solution is more intuitive spacing parameters. I've tried respacing the template before and it usually goes poorly because it's designed to fit the width of the article first and foremost. I don't know the coding of the template or how much work it'd be to fix that, but if it's doable then it's a good option.
As for the apparent "controversy", doesn't this just go back to the guideline that stylisation is typically set by the article's creator, or redefined by consensus when necessary? Does it really require this much discussion/edit-warring? Seems silly to me. QuietHere (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that it's honestly super silly. But with how much people here have been encountering problems regarding it I'd say it's worth bringing up, since some people won't stop at nothing until they get it apparently. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Responding to Zm's ping. I've never been able to hide my dislike of the template, so I welcome the style advice we've long had – both the statement that numbered lists should generally be used unless a more complicated scenario calls for an alternative way of presenting information, and the STYLERET provision that's linked to on the template page. On the latter point, we've had some editors come to the project with the sole aim of changing every numbered-list example to the template version; those track listings should never have been changed. Either here or perhaps on the template talk page, a good few years back, there was a proposal to go with the template treatment for all album track listings. The majority of editors didn't favour that at all.
As others have pointed out already, often the templated list makes for such an eyesore in Desktop, because it shunts other elements into each other. I've seen album articles where the combination of infobox, reviewer ratings box, and shortage of regular prose means that when someone changes the track listing to use the template, we're left with a disaster – it's as if no one's bothered to engage brain and think of the result visually, they've just applied a template simply because one exists.
To my mind, when the situation's so straightforward (ie, nothing but a list of songs, mostly written by the artist, with their running times), the template treatment is as overly fussy as trying to set a Personnel list in some sort of templated form where the individuals' contributions are all left-aligned in a dedicated column, as if the contributions are in some way unclear to readers when the musicians' names are of varying length. Or alternatively, towards the end of biographical articles about writers, film-makers, musicians, etc, it would be like setting a list of published works/films/albums in a table as if, say, the year or each book publisher is a detail that needs to be itemised in columns. They don't need to be itemised, because, I believe, a reader expects to see a list and parses the information accordingly.
I'm afraid I'm not convinced at all about the idea that readers look at a track listing and see each song's running time as a detail calling for columnised treatment. I own dozens of rock books and I've never had a problem in parsing info when it follows the song title at inconsistent locations across the page width. I appreciate that one or two editors above feel differently about this, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I guess my view is influenced by having worked on mostly very uncomplicated track listings.
As we all know, some albums list featured performers for all individual tracks, usually with similarly busy and varying songwriting credits. That is a complicated situation, which would be totally confusing without the clarity that the columns provide. But we don't need a one-size-fits-all style any more than we need a rigid, uniform approach to sections of prose: we use devices such as subheadings and tables when they're called for, otherwise a page can appear either poorly structured or over-designed.
(PS. Sorry, this post goes on way too long.) JG66 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Great post @JG66:. I actually find columnised track lengths much harder to read than in a simple track listing because of the absence of track numbers next to them, so they all sort of blur into one. If I'm trying to add up an album's length I find I sometimes need to remember where in the track listing I am. No problem if it's right next to the track number and track name though.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Split off soundtrack album

Was wondering whether any one from this WikiProject this that it might be possible to WP:SPLIT Where the Buffalo Roam#Soundtrack of into its own stand-alone article per WP:FILMSCORE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hypothetically, some of the stuff about the soundtrack being altered and redone over the years sounds like there could be some interesting commentary largely focused on the soundtrack itself that makes it seem like there's be things to say in an article split. However, much of that looks to be unsourced, so I have no idea if it's true or if there's the sourcing to justify a split. Sergecross73 msg me 02:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed – given the caliber of the artists who worked on the soundtrack, it seems likely that it was reviewed separately at the time in some music publications, and could be split off in the future. But right now, there doesn't seem to be enough information to justify that. Richard3120 (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Rock 'n Load at RSN

Posted a listing at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rock 'n Load after my previous concerns, definitely of interest to this WikiProject. Hopefully this is resolved there. QuietHere (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Please see Talk:The_Last_Waltz_(1978_album)#Merge and comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Template merger proposal

Proposed a merger between Template:Album ratings and Template:Song ratings which I believe is of interest to this project, find that here. QuietHere (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Keyboard Fantasies

I'm very out of my depth here, and I'm not sure if here is the right place to turn to (I suspect it may be an issue for admins?), but I'm engaged in an edit war at Keyboard Fantasies with a user who keeps adding unsourced information, among other things (see Talk:Keyboard Fantasies). I have attempted to engage them in the talk page but they have ignored my messages and kept editing (incidentally its the only article they've ever edited, likewise with another, seemingly inactive user who I'm guessing was the same person, so I'm guessing there may be concern here regarding undisclosed COI?). I believe they've acted in good faith (at least until shouting at me) but given that they have removed what they called extraneous details (I agree that some, though not all, were extraneous), while adding in unsourced and needless details such as "world-renowed Dj soundsystem", I personally find it had to tell.

Essentially, any advice here is much welcome.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like you're gonna wanna take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and leave a report there. Be sure to link to here, the article's talk page, and the page's edit history to show the full breadth of the issue so the admins understand what's going on. QuietHere (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Sergecross may want to weigh in here, given that he's an admin, but unfortunately it does look like ANI may be the next step, given that they seem unwilling to discuss it rationally. Without question the MOS:PUFFERY like "world-renowed Dj soundsystem" has to go. Richard3120 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks both. I'll see if their behaviour continues (the last revert, not by me, has yet to be reversed) and if so I'll see what I can do.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Track listings -- small font for songwriting credits?

Hello, fellow album enthusiasts! Here's a question about track listings. Many of those are formatted as numbered lists. Most of the time, the song name, the songwriting credits, and the track timing are all the same font size -- for example, Dave's Picks Volume 1. But in many cases, <small> tags have been used to display the songwriting credits in a reduced font size -- for example, Niagara Falls. This type of thing seems to be generally discouraged by MOS:SMALL. On the other hand, it might actually make the track listing easier to read and understand. WP:ALBUMSTYLE#Track listing doesn't say anything about this, so far anyway. So, should we just let editors decide how they want to do this, for each individual article? Or do we want to have a style guideline, to be followed in most, but not necessarily all, cases? Speaking for myself, I'm not sure what to think. Perhaps a lively and informed discussion will help me make up my mind. Cheers. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I feel that the contrast in size makes the list a bit more readable and keeps all the information distinct from each other, that along with the fact that nothing in MOS:ALBUMS really opposes this use in any way leads me to support the use of <small> with writing credits. Elephantranges (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
The small tag is for fine print, which I don't think this is, but you could argue that it could be I guess. If you want to make it small, please use {{small}} at the very least. That said, please don't use it, as I'd like to be able to read it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
The most important rule here is MOS:SMALL, which as you can see is part of accessibility rules. Text should never be too small as it makes it difficult for some people to read. In situations like this, yes, it does help to separate text, I can definitely see the effect of that and understand the appeal. But be wary of that page saying "reduced or enlarged font sizes should be used sparingly" and "in no case should the resulting font size of any text drop below about 85% of the page's default font size." So to say that you can use a size modifier (preferably {{small}} as Justin said) so long as it isn't too small and only when necessary. I suppose that's a matter of discretion; personally I think it's helpful here but not so much so that it quite overrides that "sparingly" so I wouldn't, but it's up to you if you disagree.
Personally, I think that's why we have and should use {{Track listing}} as it separates info by column making everything much neater and this issue less of a concern, but as you can see above at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Track listing template not everyone feels that way so I guess that's not the right answer either. QuietHere (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
See to me it’s not necessarily about the text size, it’s about the visual distinction between the song title and its writers. So if there’s some other way to do that that’s more welcomed, I’d be happy with that, too. Elephantranges (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Getting Older 1981–1991

Notice

The article Getting Older 1981–1991 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NN album

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Reissues

Is there a consensus as to what reissue info should be added to album articles? A user here keeps removing sourced information about recent reissues on the Oingo Boingo album pages. Moreover, he states that a listing of bonus tracks in the track listing should suffice, when the discussion here and the policy at WP:ALTTRACKLIST seems to specify the exact opposite; namely that notable differences should only be summarized in prose, unless they're significant and discussed in detail. Should I restore the sourced prose and remove the bonus tracks from the listing? Keep both? Or is none of this information necessary at all? Thanks. —The Keymaster (talk)

We should definitely amend the style guide info: it is vital and fundamental information to include alternate track listings. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
That was hashed out pretty well here. I'm torn, as I do think endless alt track listings bog down the album pages with clutter. However, my question is more about reissue info in general. I would think a brief, properly sourced sentence or two about a remastered reissue CD with bonus tracks is perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia, but there's an editor here who keeps removing this kind of info from one band's album pages. Thoughts?
—The Keymaster (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I've kept generalized info about reissues in my Elvis Costello pages (My Aim Is True, This Year's Model, etc.) I originally had all the alternate track listings of their expansive reissues (two per album) but with the discussion you mentioned I just kept the sections, which I think suffice pretty well. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 12:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I like the way you've laid that out. Should I restore the reissue info to the Boingo pages in a similar fashion? (See the Nothing to Fear edit history for an example of what was removed.) The Keymaster (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding dates to album listings in a template

I was visiting Template:Pentatonix, removing non-linking album listings as inappropriate for navigation templates, and I noted that the template had dates applies to all the albums and EPs. I don't recall seeing that before for templates, and I felt that dates were more for directories and should not be in the navigation box template. I read the guidelines in WP:NAVBOX, and I am not sure after reading it that it does clearly state that non-linking listings should be removed from Navboxes, and I am unsure about dates. I just reviewed the Navbox for Template:The Rolling Stones and Template:The Beatles albums, and see that The Rolling Stone listing includes dates and the Beatles albums listing does not include date, so I am guessing it is by personal choice. I would like to ask for thoughts on this. Mburrell (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes they are in there and I find them helpful for context. I recently made {{Phoebe Snow}} and {{Rick Danko}} and included them. Note that while there is a strong preference for existing, stand-alone articles, there could be times when including a redlink or a redirect that isn't bypassed could be appropriate, like if a band has five albums and we only have full articles for four, but the third redirects to their discography. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I've always taken it as a style choice. It's not unhelpful info and there's not really reason to not have them so long as the page doesn't get overcrowded. Like the Rolling Stones one might be better off without them just because of how big it is, but it's not a big deal. In the ones I've made I mostly don't add them, though a couple times (Tobacco and Sons of Kemet) I have and I think it looks fine with 'em. To be honest, I probably wasn't thinking about it much when I did make those and just did it because I happened to remember it was a thing I could add. But the rest that don't have 'em look fine too. So I guess it's editor's discretion unless more editors come along with a major consensus either way. QuietHere (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't recall the exact venue, but it was a big debate a few years back. Some felt it was helpful, while others didn't feel it aided in navigation and felt it should be removed. It ended up being a stalemate, with the only agreement being to treat it sort of like WP:ENGVAR, as in, don't Switch back and forth between formats. The fact that I'm the only one so far remembering this though is probably a testament to how little it's been enforced though... Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
No, I remember the debate as well, I was just trying to find it before commenting. I'm also ambivalent about including the years or not, although like QuietHere, I think it can make things a bit difficult to read in a large navbox and just takes up room. I know that WikiProject Jazz has a rule of making the years in the navbox the recording date of an album, rather than the release date – for jazz albums it's very common that these dates can vary wildly, as live concerts may be recorded but only officially released years later. It does mean, however, that the dates and the chronological order vary between the infobox and the navbox, which I sometimes find confusing, and I wonder whether in these cases it's better to leave the navbox dates out entirely. Richard3120 (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
In that case I would stick strictly to release dates just to avoid that confusion and keep standard with other genres. QuietHere (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
There are good reasons for jazz using recording dates. Putting recording dates in a template is possible, as is including a statement that the years are of recording. I see no reason to change this. EddieHugh (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I mean if it's made clear that they're recording dates then I suppose it's fine. Excuse me, I hadn't seen any examples and I suppose I spoke out of turn. QuietHere (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
It's fine. An example is Template:Lee Morgan (click on 'show'). However, I don't know how accurate it is! EddieHugh (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, if it's clearly stated then it okay. EddieHugh, I do understand why jazz albums are often listed by recording dates: unlike albums in almost any other genre, which are generally both recorded and released in the same chronological order, jazz albums are often released years after recording and in haphazard order, with the result that there are albums being released now in the 2020s by musicians who died 20 or 30 years ago. Seeing dozens of "2010s albums" and "2020s albums" for long-deceased artists in the navbox would be weird, I absolutely understand that. My concern was simply that if it isn't made clear in some way, it could be confusing to the casual reader to see entirely different dates listed in the infobox and the navbox. Richard3120 (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, yes. There's the additional point that published jazz discographies are usually presented by recording dates (release dates are often not mentioned). This also aids listeners, who are often interested in how a musician changed over time – this can be obscured by sequencing based on when record labels chose to release material. EddieHugh (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't doubt any of this, the main part of the discourse though is if that truly belongs in navigation templates or if it's more suited for discographies. If we're re-litigating the issue, I believe the latter, but if not, I won't push further. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Here are links to a couple of archived RFCs related to the topic:
--StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, thank you. This answered my questions. Mburrell (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether WP:SPS by Austin Bessey is a reliable source for songs

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheesh! we are debating whether an SPS by Austin Bessey is a RS. I got an unfavorable opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Whether_WP:SPS_by_Austin_Bessey_is_a_reliable_source. I think this is a very industry specific request that people here might consider differently. My brief experience in the 1980s as a college radio station DJ and music director leads me to believe that Bessey who described his professional experience here as "over 6 years directing and managing the music programming for the national Radio Disney and Radio Disney Country stations". Although the WP article on Programming (music) does not include the responsibility of airplay management as part of the role, I believe that he evaluated which music submissions for inclusion in the airplay rotation and how heavily they should be rotated, making him a subject matter expert on songs. Yet, I am unable to get a concession that a professional music programmer for a national radio network constitutes a subject matter expert on songs.

My question is whether this "Sheesh!" review contributes to WP:SIGCOV as a WP:RS. Whether this review is an RS boils down to 3 elements: 1. Whether Bessey is a subject matter expert for songs, 2. Whether his work has been published in the proper manner and 3. whether his review of "Sheesh!" which is just 3 sentences constituted WP:SIGCOV. Since my experience was at a new music radio station assessing whether works by relatively unknown up and coming acts such as Run DMC, Beastie Boys and Whitney Houston should be aired, I might be a bit off in my understanding of how hit music or popular music radio works. However, my perception is that Bessey often considered hundreds of songs in a week and writing 3 positive sentences about one of them would be a significant opinion. Furthermore, I contend that the fact that the fraction of 1% of the songs that he endorsed made the airwaves was a form of publication for the field of musical programming. The third consideration is whether a 2-sentence paragraph about a song and a 3rd sentence declaring it a landmark for the band constitutes significant coverage.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

First off, I would like to remind this project has strict music WP has been about SME in the past by pointing to our well-established history of never getting a solid consensus on the reliability of Anthony Fantano/The Needle Drop. I'm not here to open a new discussion on him because we've done enough of that, but just to point out that there were far more qualifications in favor of Fantano's reliability than there are for Mr. Bessey here. Fantano's been covered in the New York Times while the biggest coverage of Bessey I can see is from the Nashville Voyager and All Access. Per precedent, if Fantano's not good enough for a pass then there's no way this guy is.
And it's also worth clarifying that the "unfavorable opinion" Tony mentions consists of one editor saying this is definitely not reliable, a second trying to redirect to a policy discussion of due weight (which I disagree with), and a third simply writing "Who?" The "unfavorable opinion" so far is just telling Tony the same thing Richard3120 went long on in the AfD which he refused to accept. QuietHere (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
"Refused to accept" paints the wrong picture. That makes it sound like I am trying to cram a keep through the process by hammering on Bessey. I am hard at work making the article more robust and well-rounded in many dimensions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but you're also asking about the Bessey source in three different venues because the first two told you it wasn't acceptable. QuietHere (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether WP:SPS by Austin Bessey is a reliable source for songs

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheesh! we are debating whether an SPS by Austin Bessey is a RS. I got an unfavorable opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Whether_WP:SPS_by_Austin_Bessey_is_a_reliable_source. I think this is a very industry specific request that people here might consider differently. My brief experience in the 1980s as a college radio station DJ and music director leads me to believe that Bessey who described his professional experience here as "over 6 years directing and managing the music programming for the national Radio Disney and Radio Disney Country stations". Although the WP article on Programming (music) does not include the responsibility of airplay management as part of the role, I believe that he evaluated which music submissions for inclusion in the airplay rotation and how heavily they should be rotated, making him a subject matter expert on songs. Yet, I am unable to get a concession that a professional music programmer for a national radio network constitutes a subject matter expert on songs.

My question is whether this "Sheesh!" review contributes to WP:SIGCOV as a WP:RS. Whether this review is an RS boils down to 3 elements: 1. Whether Bessey is a subject matter expert for songs, 2. Whether his work has been published in the proper manner and 3. whether his review of "Sheesh!" which is just 3 sentences constituted WP:SIGCOV. Since my experience was at a new music radio station assessing whether works by relatively unknown up and coming acts such as Run DMC, Beastie Boys and Whitney Houston should be aired, I might be a bit off in my understanding of how hit music or popular music radio works. However, my perception is that Bessey often considered hundreds of songs in a week and writing 3 positive sentences about one of them would be a significant opinion. Furthermore, I contend that the fact that the fraction of 1% of the songs that he endorsed made the airwaves was a form of publication for the field of musical programming. The third consideration is whether a 2-sentence paragraph about a song and a 3rd sentence declaring it a landmark for the band constitutes significant coverage.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

First off, I would like to remind this project has strict music WP has been about SME in the past by pointing to our well-established history of never getting a solid consensus on the reliability of Anthony Fantano/The Needle Drop. I'm not here to open a new discussion on him because we've done enough of that, but just to point out that there were far more qualifications in favor of Fantano's reliability than there are for Mr. Bessey here. Fantano's been covered in the New York Times while the biggest coverage of Bessey I can see is from the Nashville Voyager and All Access. Per precedent, if Fantano's not good enough for a pass then there's no way this guy is.
And it's also worth clarifying that the "unfavorable opinion" Tony mentions consists of one editor saying this is definitely not reliable, a second trying to redirect to a policy discussion of due weight (which I disagree with), and a third simply writing "Who?" The "unfavorable opinion" so far is just telling Tony the same thing Richard3120 went long on in the AfD which he refused to accept. QuietHere (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
"Refused to accept" paints the wrong picture. That makes it sound like I am trying to cram a keep through the process by hammering on Bessey. I am hard at work making the article more robust and well-rounded in many dimensions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but you're also asking about the Bessey source in three different venues because the first two told you it wasn't acceptable. QuietHere (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

No longer reliable source: alternativeaddiction.com

The site alternativeaddiction.com is no longer a music website. It seems to be a support program for substance abuse. Should this be removed from the Reliable Sources page or should we replace the link with an archive link? Elemenopee9 (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Add an archive link. The site is still available via the Wayback Machine and if it was useful before then it's still useful now even if the publication is defunct now. There's at least one other defunct publication on the list as well such as The Fly and I know editors wouldn't want to get rid of that either (see here). QuietHere (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Yup, exactly this. We could add a note about it on the RSMUSIC list too. It's not a big deal. I think the website has been inactive for many years as it is. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Far Out reliability

Did we ever get a consensus on whether Far Out (magazine) is considered reliable? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

AfD notice

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stardom (EP) has gotten relisted twice without any responses so far, so if any of you took a look at it that would be appreciated. QuietHere (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:12:00 (Loona EP)#Requested move 16 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:12:00 (Loona EP)#Requested move 16 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Opinion on using Wikidata for tracklist tables

If another RFC was started today on the policy of using Wikidata on enwiki and one of the proposed allowed use cases would be generating tracklist tables for albums using Wikidata, would you approve of such a use? Lectrician1 (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I support, as this will help with internationalization. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I started working on something like this back in 2020. See this page. - Premeditated (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Drawing this kind of objective, mechanical data from Wikidata is exactly why it exists. Great work. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd support, as this should be unquestionable and irrefutable data, which is what works best on Wikidata. Although, the usability would be limited by the tools we have for adding these data items to Wikidata; I'd like some of these too. --Muhandes (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I would oppose. Ever since the original RFC allowing us to test Wikidata in the first place, almost every RFC has turned out with consensus against Wikidata or at best a no-consensus result. I do appreciate this going to RFC first, rather than more common path of proceeding to convert to Wikidata without consensus. Like many editors, I'm tired of recurring pattern of Wikidata-enthusiasts throwing time town the toilet convert page(s) to Wikidata, followed by an inevitable VillagePump and/or RFC timesink, followed by various Wikidata critics having to throw even more time down the toilet stripping contrary-to-consensus Wikidata out of those page(s). There's no way the original Wikidata activation would have been allowed if people had known how disruptive it was going to be, with all the time wasted on endless repeated argument and the double-waste of work every time it gets rolled forwards and rolled back. The most egregious case involved over 1700 pages and MONTHS of work flushed down the toilet by both sides. Alsee (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
@Alsee

I would oppose.

You didn't explain why above. Lectrician1 (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposing Relix as a reliable source for rock and jam band news and reviews

I think that Relix is a legit publication and should be added to our sources list. Thoughts? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree, was surprised it wasn't already listed. Has qualified writers like Jeff Tamarkin, etc. ... Caro7200 (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd much rather this was used instead of Jambase, which seems to be the go-to source used for the never-ending stream of releases of Grateful Dead live albums. Richard3120 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Weak consensus but a consensus. I'm planning on adding it to the reliable sources soon, lest any objections. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources&diff=next&oldid=1122016268 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd never heard of it until now, and don't see it used or discussed much, so imagine that's the only reason it's not listed. Researching it, it sounds like it meets our RS standards. Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look and affirming. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Northern Transmissions RSN

Started a query at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Northern Transmissions which is of interest to this project/RSMUSIC. QuietHere (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Is typography important for articles?

Hey all. I saw an editor add the specific typography used in the cover artworks for Aladdin Sane and Jump (Van Halen song) (here and here). They first added them with no source so I reverted them but they came back with a source (this one from "fontsinuse.com"). I removed it again from Aladdin Sane here with the reasoning that I don't really see how it's necessary/important for WP articles. Then I thought I'd better post about it here in case anyone else has any opinions on this. Does anyone else think the typography of cover artworks is relevant enough to include in WP articles? And on top of that, would "fontsinuse.com" be reliable? Thanks. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding reliability I can't say, though they do appear to be subject-matter experts per their about page so there's at least some promise there. The one thing I can say is this shouldn't have its own section of an article. The Aladdin Sane article has a perfectly fine cover art section that this could easily slot into. Giving something this small its own section is just silly. QuietHere (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
There could be some albums where the typography is discussed by reliable sources (e.g. Helvetica on A Love Supreme or Cooper Black on Pet Sounds), but if there aren't sufficient reliable sources, typography is far from the most important element. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Koavf None of my Bowie bios go into anything related to typography and if all we have is "fontsinuse.com" would you say it's not important? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
A single mention at a site that I don't know to be reliable and which is going to make it a point to write about typography is a no for me. Put another way, this isn't a site about albums, but a site about fonts and they just talk about albums. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Album lengths question

So I've come upon a conundrum. Myths of the Near Future lists a total length of 36:31 in its infobox, and that's accurate to the version of the release I've got. However, as noted on the track listing, the UK version has an exclusive 2:26 hidden track with a 15:00 track of silence before it, bringing the total length up to 53:46. That's a big difference, and it seems silly that that isn't reflected in the infobox (or mentioned anywhere in prose for that matter, though that's another issue). Given Klaxons were an English band, I would assume the UK version was the primary release of the album, though I haven't looked into it to confirm that. Assuming it is, would that be reason to use that version's total length in the infobox? Should it stay with the shorter length since that's what the majority of regions got? Should it go to whichever version released first like how we list release dates in infoboxes? Or do we list both times and designate one as the UK edition? QuietHere (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Obviously I don't have any more authority on this matter than the next guy, but with that said I would always go with whatever length matches that of the edition released in the band's home country. So I would go with the UK version's length here. Elephantranges (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I think the artist's country of origin/main edition should go in the infobox. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
If that includes 15 minutes of silence, it's not all that different. If anything, the longer time is almost misleading. It's not like there 50+ minutes of actual music... Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Sure, but if I bought a CD copy of that album, stuck it in my player, pressed play, and let it go without touching the player again until it finished, then 50+ minutes will have passed. Silence or not, it's still the total time from beginning to end. QuietHere (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm don't feel strongly either way, so don't let me get in the way of a consensus. I'm just saying I don't really agree with the sentiment of it being a "big difference". It would be one thing if we were talking about a quarter of a body of music not being represented in the run time. But it's not. It's largely just not counting silence. If we're fine with skipping out on b-sides or deluxe edition content runtime in infoboxes, seems like it'd be fine discounting silence too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I definitely get what you mean, and I'm not saying it's a "big difference" in terms of urgency, just a mathematical one. Although I'd like to reemphasise that the 36:31 time also doesn't include the hidden track at the end, so it technically isn't just silence, only mostly. QuietHere (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hometowns#Requested move 9 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hometowns#Requested move 9 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of I Love Being Trendy

Notice

The article I Love Being Trendy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable sources in the article's 15.62 years

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I'd just boldly redirect it to the musicians article, as it's probably a possible search term at least. Sergecross73 msg me 21:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
The band's article is also at AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Parental Advisory

Parental Advisory has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:IIII (album)#Requested move 2 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:IIII (album)#Requested move 2 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Recently an IP has been changing some NME ratings, from a rating out of ten to a five-star rating. Technically, they're not doing anything wrong: the NME website has updated its old ratings to five-star ratings so they are simply using what's there. But I am wondering whether we should keep to the original rating. For example, Usher's 8701 now shows as four stars out of five [4] but both the magazine and the early version of the website used 8/10 [5].

I've noticed print/online discrepancies elsewhere. The old 1960s and 1970s reviews on Rolling Stone's website used to be dated one day different to the print version for some reason, but the website seems to have corrected this now (although it might mean a lot of album articles might need changing). And the print version of the 2006 The Times article "Oasis album voted greatest of all time" [6] has an entirely different title, "Definitely the greatest album (maybe)", in the newspaper, and was also published the day after the online version, on 2 June 2006.

In the grand scheme of things this doesn't matter very much - the important thing is to be be to access the information to verify it - but I wondered if other editors had opinions on this. Richard3120 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, as long as they're the same value, I don't see why it matters. 4/5, 8/10, or 208/260 all equate to the same value - 80%. But I've gotten into some bizarre arguments with people on this website over this, ("No no, the album didn't get a 4/5 score, it got 4 stars out of 5!") so who knows if people will agree with me here, even if the math is basic. Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I prefer using the original scales as much as possible, especially if the citation references the original. I've changed old Spin ratings--magazine ones--from stars to numbers, because that's how the magazine printed them. But a larger point is brought up: it seems as if more editors don't believe ratings--or anything--if the citations aren't url links ... but maybe that's been an issue since 2001 ... Caro7200 (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Tribute albums

There is a suggestion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 5#Category:Laura Nyro tribute albums that Category:Tribute albums should be fully split by original artist. Please comment there. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_66&oldid=1137507071"