David Tornheim (talk | contribs) →Reliable vs. Unreliable sources: add source Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
GanzKnusper (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 70K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 74 |
||
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
||
|algo = old(30d) |
|algo = old(30d) |
||
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/ |
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-11/WikiProject report|writer= [[User:Mabeenot|Mabeenot]] ||day =11|month=July|year=2011}} |
||
{{archives|bot=MiszaBot II|auto=short|age=30|search=yes}} |
{{archives|bot=MiszaBot II|auto=short|age=30|search=yes}} |
||
== Good article reassessment for [[Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One]] == |
|||
== AllMusic dates == |
|||
[[Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. – '''[[User:Zmbro|zmbro]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Zmbro|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Zmbro|cont]])</sub> 16:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Apple Music's list == |
|||
Currently, the advice on this page is: "Track listings, release dates, record label, album covers and track lengths can all be found at AllMusic." That's true, but unfortunately AllMusic can't be trusted for dates. Here's a classic example, where they say an album was released before it had been recorded: [https://www.allmusic.com/album/illumination-mw0000653939]. I've come across lots of examples of them giving the same date for recording and release, which is impossible (this is for physical albums). I suggest removing the recommendation that AllMusic should/could be used for dates. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 01:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with you about dates – this is part of the information in the sidebar on the left where users can make corrections, and we've already deemed it unreliable for use for music genres. I've also noted errors here – for example, the date for Alton Ellis' ''Mr. Soul of Jamaica'' compilation album of singles was originally listed as being 1970, which was impossible as he had only recorded two of the album's tracks by that date... it's now been changed to the correct year of 1974. So as these dates can be changed by anyone, they are not fixed and therefore not reliable for use on Wikipedia. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 02:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:: I noticed it's very hard to find correct first release dates of old albums. AllMusic, iTunes and even other shops sometimes shows random dates. Usally these dates are wrong about few days-one month period. [[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] ([[User talk:Eurohunter|talk]]) 18:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:They make mistakes, but the dates there can't be changed by just anyone. I often find they list re-release dates rather than original release dates. --[[User:Michig|Michig]] ([[User talk:Michig|talk]]) 18:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Some of these mistake may be the result of systematic database errors on the part of Allmusic's administrators - I think sometimes fields get loaded ''en masse'' into the wrong places. I can speak from personal experience: it is not easy to get Allmusic to change things on its site, so I don't know where the "these dates can be changed by anyone" idea came from. [[User:Chubbles|Chubbles]] ([[User talk:Chubbles|talk]]) 04:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::I have been involved in some earlier discussions on this matter for jazz albums, where release dates can be tricky for reasons specific to that genre. But just because AllMusic has been known to commit some errors, that is not a logical reason to conclude that they can ''never'' be trusted. Simply find corroboration elsewhere. For example, if AllMusic and the record company and Amazon all say an album was released in 1987, then there is no reason to conclude that none can be trusted and the release date is totally unknown. ---<span style="font-family: Calibri">[[User:doomsdayer520|<b style="color: DarkOrchid"><small>DOOMSDAYER</small>520</b>]] ([[User talk:Doomsdayer520|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Doomsdayer520|Contribs]])</span> 15:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{re|Doomsdayer520}} I think that's a reasonable assumption to make if all of them show the same date, but I'm not sure what an editor would do in the case of a song like "[[Fairytale of New York]]" where AllMusic shows the correct release year of 1987, but iTunes states 1986, and Amazon 2012... [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 18:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::The examples given by others are not from jazz, so this doesn't appear to be a genre-specific problem. No source will be 100% dependable, but when one is wrong so frequently, I don't think we should be advising editors to use it (just as we don't with AllMusic's genre sidebar). How about changing the wording to state that, if the AllMusic sidebar is used as a source for dates, then it must be backed up by at least one other source? [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 20:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::What would be the point of using it at all though in that scenario? You could just use the other RS at that point. Not defending Allmusic’s dates, just saying that’d be kinda pointless. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 22:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It was an attempt at a compromise, even though no one is strongly defending AllMusic, so that it wouldn't be ruled out completely as a source for dates. I'd be happy to see the advice changed to the same as for genres though. Are there any objections? [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 16:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Is the recently top 100 albums from Apple Music allowed to be referenced in the pages of albums that made the list? [[User:Cahlin29|Cahlin29]] ([[User talk:Cahlin29|talk]]) 04:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
AMG is huge, so it's more-or-less inevitable that they have some errors. Plus, they aren't a wiki: it's not like anyone can edit anything, they just have users who can suggest improvements. That's true of ''The New York Times''. It would be ''less'' reliable if they didn't allow anyone to suggest updates. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 18:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:When "some errors" becomes a proportion that editors who frequently use it have noticed and have plenty of examples, we shouldn't be actively encouraging using AllMusic sidebar information as a source for dates. That time is now, unfortunately. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 19:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::...That’s a pretty strong assertion for the minimal, anecdotal evidence that has been provided so far... [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 20:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::There's little alternative to finding evidence as we come across it / being anecdotal... is there empirical evidence that it ''is'' reliable for dates? [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 20:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::For one of the greatest saxophonists: [https://www.allmusic.com/album/work-time-mw0000204078 album released on the day it was recorded] / [https://www.allmusic.com/album/tour-de-force-mw0000654776 same] / [https://www.allmusic.com/album/sonny-rollins-vol-1-mw0000196442 same] / [https://www.allmusic.com/album/way-out-west-mw0000649710 same] / [https://www.allmusic.com/album/sonny-rollins-vol-2-mw0000668085 same] / [https://www.allmusic.com/album/newks-time-mw0000203313 same] / [https://www.allmusic.com/album/a-night-at-the-village-vanguard-vol-1-mw0000188596 another one] / [https://www.allmusic.com/album/a-night-at-the-village-vanguard-vol-2-mw0000649708 same] / [https://www.allmusic.com/album/a-night-at-the-village-vanguard-vol-3-mw0000551230 same] / [https://www.allmusic.com/album/in-stockholm-1959-mw0000915862 same] / [https://www.allmusic.com/album/sonny-side-up-mw0000188698 recorded "December" & released "December 19", so possible, if unlikely] / [https://www.allmusic.com/album/duets-mw0000652394 review: "The product of a day's worth of recording at Nola Studios in 1957" but sidebar recording dates "December 11, 1957 & December 19, 1957" & release date "1957"] / [https://www.allmusic.com/album/sonny-boy-mw0000203974 review: "Recorded in 1956 but issued in 1960" but sidebar release "1957"] / [https://www.allmusic.com/album/sonny-rollins-and-the-big-brass-mw0000047321 released ''before'' it was recorded!] / [https://www.allmusic.com/album/mambo-jazz-mw0000917317 recording date "December 17, 1951 - February 15, 1951"] and that's just the first decade of his career. I can spend more time finding yet more evidence, but I hope that isn't necessary. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 21:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The 'recorded "December" & released "December 19"' is another one that AllMusic says was released on the day it was recorded... it was recorded on December 19, [https://www.jazzdisco.org/sonny-rollins/discography/#571219 source here]. There's something fundamentally wrong about how AllMusic adds dates to a lot of its pages: this is not an occasional human slip up or typo. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 21:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
So, where do we stand now? [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 11:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: No change in the advice. If you find a contradictory release date that is confirmed by two other reliable sources, use the sourced date. The dates are generally reliable. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 15:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::"generally reliable"... How many examples would it take to show that there is a serious reliability problem with the dates? ok, here's some more. [[Keith Jarrett]] to 1973: 5 release dates are definitely wrong and another 2 probably are. That's at least 40% wrong (same as Sonny Rollins, above). [[Horace Silver]]: 5 out of the first 13 are obviously wrong... close to 40% again. Recent releases must be super-reliable though, surely? No... from recent classical releases: [https://www.allmusic.com/album/MW0003238405 text has "2018", sidebar has "February 1, 2019"]... [https://www.allmusic.com/album/reiko-f%C3%BCting-distant-song-mw0003234653 another with text "2018", sidebar "January 4, 2019"]; that's 2 out of 11 of Blair Sanderson's reviews wrong: 18%. Looking at AM's [https://www.allmusic.com/newreleases/all alphabetical list of new releases] that it has reviewed: [https://www.allmusic.com/album/the-composer-of-desafinado-plays-mw0000188233/releases this album was ahead of its time]: a digital release in 1963; [https://www.allmusic.com/album/songs-for-distingu%C3%A9-lovers-mw0000250079 released in the month of recording...], probably wrong but this version, [https://www.allmusic.com/album/release/songs-for-distingu%C3%A9-lovers-mr0004995384 released on the first day of the month in which it was recorded], is definitely wrong; [https://www.allmusic.com/album/black-sheets-of-rain-mw0000308595 released same month as recorded]... possible, if unlikely in 1990; [https://www.allmusic.com/album/happenings-mw0000192021 released 2 days after recording]... wrong; [https://www.allmusic.com/album/components-mw0000624439 4 days after recording]... no. So, I've gone through A and B in their alphabetical list: 23 albums and there's a problem with 4 or 5, ie 17-21%. Aren't these percentages (of known errors, remember: without checking other sources, the real error rates remain unknown) too high for us to be telling editors to use this as a source without any warning or caveat? [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 19:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: 50%+1. I can show you 100 were they are correct. Once you have the total count of all entries with dates and can show that there are more unreliable dates than reliable dates I'll be glad to agree with you. [[:WP:STICK]] much? [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 04:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::"shut up already"? There's no need to be aggressive. How could anything being wrong up to 49% of the time be something we would want to recommend as being reliable? [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 12:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::His point is valid and what I was going to raise myself. Context matters. 50 errors out of 100 entries is abysmal. 50 errors out of 1 million is considered very good. You’re not providing context for your raw data. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 12:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::[[User:Sergecross73|Sergecross73]], could you clarify which person is "his" and which person is "you're"? Thanks. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 12:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Walter has a point, Eddies raw data lacks context. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 13:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::So far, I've given the names of the musicians I've looked at and the date ranges checked; for the second set of examples, I've given the AllMusic url for their alphabetical list of new releases and given the name of the reviewer of new classical releases, [https://www.allmusic.com/blog/post/new-classical-reviews-jan-2019 url & full list here]. I've expressed all of these as raw numbers and percentages; isn't that the context you need to assess, based on your "50 errors out of 100 entries is abysmal. 50 errors out of 1 million is considered very good"? AllMusic must have tens of thousands of reviews; the only realistic way of checking reliability is to take samples, which is what I've done (if there were an automated way of comparing AM dates with actual dates, they wouldn't have the problem). The first set was from jazz, which is what I'm involved in; the second set was to show that the problem is beyond jazz and beyond old releases (I just took what AM was advertising as the latest releases&reviews when I checked). Would you like further context/examples? [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 13:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
This is a fair bit of substantial evidence being provided here, and while large datasets almost inevitably have errors, I think what we're seeing here may be part of the fuzziness of what we mean by "dates". This is often treated as a single field that actually stands in for a range of different temporal inflection points related to a creative work. Most often, we're interested in fixing the date of recording and the date of release; AMG, in particular, seems to have trouble with these, even though it has separate fields for both (again, I wonder if this is to do with a mass-ingest mistake when they were populating their databases). Sometimes (truth be told, most of the time) we're looking for just the year, and sometimes day - month - year. But many resources identify only year of release, not date; it wasn't always common in the music industry to systematically track this information in the way most major releases are today. Researchers and databases often take release information directly from recording liner notes themselves, which are of course printed ahead of the release date and so do not contain information about the exact date of the release. (If you put this into a system that demands day-month-year, sometimes those systems autofill with the first of the month or the first day of the year.) Sometimes the date on a recording is the date ''copyright is asserted in the work'', which may be the year before or the year after the album was recorded, pressed, or released (or, in rare cases, can be more than one year away). Some releases get issued on different dates in different formats, and others are issued on different dates in different regions; AMG only has one field for release date, and some of the discrepancies for more recent releases, I suspect, may stem from European releases getting delayed issue in the United States (where AMG is based). All of this isn't really ''that'' big a deal if you're just interested in getting a simple year date for a recording's release, especially if a year's given on the back cover; any exceptions or inconsistencies can just be handled case by case with additional referencing. For more detailed date-by-date information, we'd need correspondingly more robust sourcing. Now, if AMG's database is not flexible enough to differentiate between these scenarios, and is systematically introducing errors, then it may be a good idea to reword the advice here; perhaps we can point to a range of different discographical resources and suggest that interested editors corroborate between sources if and when disparities are found. (Eddie, if you did a full statistical sampling analysis of AMG's reliability, you might well be able to get it published at a music IR conference.) [[User:Chubbles|Chubbles]] ([[User talk:Chubbles|talk]]) 17:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: Agree with Chubbles and in part with the additional evidence shown with EddieHugh. We could certainly add clarifying text to the effect that AM has been shown to have dates that differ from other reliable sources for older releases (releases prior to a specific year?). However to have a blanket prohibition on its dates or even to impugn its credibility based on an unknown percentage of its entries is not appropriate. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) |
|||
::As Chubbles hints at, doing a systematic analysis of AllMusic dates would be a major undertaking. It would require a complete list of their articles and a complete list of correct release dates. The latter obviously doesn't exist, so knowing what % of entries are incorrect is impossible to know. I suggest changing the text to "Track listings, release dates, record label, album covers and track lengths can all be found at AllMusic (check that the dates given are not contradictory – such as recording and release dates being the same – and consider finding another source for dates for pre-internet-era releases)". [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 15:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm gonna say no in so far as we don't consider Apple Music a reliable publication, but I know others which we do consider reliable have covered at least part of the list so those may be okay. Given how much of the list consists of all-time popular/acclaimed albums though, I'm not sure there's much point in including it since those articles probably already have a dozen other lists each saying the same thing. It's a drop in the bucket. [[User:QuietHere|QuietHere]] ([[User talk:QuietHere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/QuietHere|contributions]]) 07:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Charting and genres == |
|||
::Alright, that's fair, thanks for taking the time to respond. [[User:Cahlin29|Cahlin29]] ([[User talk:Cahlin29|talk]]) 07:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's an interesting list though, I can imagine that it's caused a lot of debate seeing how it's left out so many of the acknowledged "classics". As a Brit, I find the inclusion of Sade in this list and the ''Rolling Stone'' 500 albums fascinating... the Americans seem to love her, but in her native UK her albums have been all but forgotten since the 1990s. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 09:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Although I see now that an editor has started adding the list to those albums anyway... [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 09:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Given the amount of attention the list has gotten, that does not surprise me in the slightest. [[User:QuietHere|QuietHere]] ([[User talk:QuietHere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/QuietHere|contributions]]) 12:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Album title that can't be typed == |
|||
Apparently {{user|DannyMusicEditor}} has told me many times that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Older_I_Get&curid=11344953&diff=883945773&oldid=883880474 charts do not determine genre]. I don't recall may discussions about but, let's ignore the hyperbole and ask the question as to whether a song or album charting in a specific genre qualifies that genre to be listed in the infobox. In other words, if a song makes it on the country charts, is that enough to call it a country song? If it makes in on the modern rock charts, is that enough to call it modern rock? Other genres included. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 19:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
So the article on Patrick Moraz's first solo album is located at [[The Story of I]], but for those of you who don't know, "The Story of I" is not the actual title of the album. In fact, while it is unquestionably the album's [[WP:COMMONNAME]], the phrase "The Story of I" doesn't appear anywhere on the album or its original packaging, so I can only guess how anyone came up with it. The reason why people don't use the real title is more obvious: it's an unpronounceable symbol which doesn't appear on any conventional keyboard. |
|||
* That, I feel, is an acceptable first start, I do general things like this sometimes, but I also make it clear that anything that I do like that is challengeable and removable if you oppose. Before we go any further, let me clarify that '''the example that brought us here today is [[Skillet (band)|Skillet]]'s "[[The Older I Get]]".''' I personally oppose this one - the context given on what the song is about does not cite anything directly involving a Christian standpoint, aside from the concept of forgiveness which I know is taught and emphasized in [[Bible|Christian scriptures]], but the concept of forgiveness is not exclusive to Christian ideology and the interview in the article '''does not''' explicitly imply a Christian standpoint. Just because [[Daughtry (band)|Daughtry]]'s "[[Home (Daughtry song)|Home]]" charted on Christian charts does not make it a Christian rock or Christian anything song necessarily, so neither should this one. I agree that Skillet is absolutely a Christian group, there's no ignoring that, but I don't think everything they make is necessarily built in the confines of non-secularity. I think it quite possible that the band's massive popularity in the Christian scene may have forced this one into the charts whether it be a Christian song or not. In conclusion, I argue that a recording's genre of any type should ''preferably'' be supported by secondary professional reviewers, and on a lesser basis, by the artist themselves. '''[[User:DannyMusicEditor|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">danny</span><small>music</small><span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">editor</span>]]''' <sup> [[User talk:DannyMusicEditor|oops]] </sup> 20:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::To answer the question, we need to know how the organizations behind the charts choose which one(s) to put a recording in. Does anyone know? I've seen albums put in a certain chart based on what the musician has built a reputation on playing, even when the albums are in a different style, so I lean towards supporting the idea that charts do not (necessarily) determine genre. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 20:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{xt|I've seen albums put in a certain chart based on what the musician has built a reputation on playing, even when the albums are in a different style.}} This is precisely my point. '''[[User:DannyMusicEditor|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">danny</span><small>music</small><span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">editor</span>]]''' <sup> [[User talk:DannyMusicEditor|oops]] </sup> 20:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
While the article's name is fine as it is (again, [[WP:COMMONNAME]]), it seems like the real title of the album should at least be mentioned in the article, but though I've seen articles use such non-standard symbols, I don't know how one goes about adding them. Can anyone help me here? (Also, if by chance someone has handy sourced info about how and why "The Story of I" became the generally understood title for the album, that would be terrific.) [[User:Martin IIIa|Martin IIIa]] ([[User talk:Martin IIIa|talk]]) 15:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Personally, I’ve used it as justification to add general, non-contentious genre to song articles, but I was never sure if that was supported by past consensus or anything. I’ll try to dig up an example. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 21:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::I think my justification of adding “Rock” to [[Saint Cecilia (song)]] was that it charted on the Billboard rock charts. But yeah, I usually only do that as a last resort in obvious situations. I’d do it for something like [[Foo Fighters]] - people would be hard pressed to call most of their output “not rock” - but wouldn’t do it as a widespread thing, as rock radio does occasionally play non-rock music (certain songs by [[Beastie Boys]], [[Gorillaz]], [[Twenty One Pilots]], etc.) So, in the context here, with there being room for a good faith doubt, I’d probably want a better source. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 21:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:I know loosely if what you're talking about, but I'm afraid I don't know how to do it with a keyboard either. Is it used anywhere online in reviews or discogs text or anything? Sometimes even if you can't type it, you can copy/paste it (depending on what it is.) [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 19:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I remember when "[[Royals (song)|Royals]]" crossed over and began receiving airplay on R&B radio stations. It even reached #3 on the R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay chart in ''Billboard'', but it did not crack the main Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart because someone at ''Billboard'' made the determination that it's not an R&B song. If the song was released a few years earlier before their methodology changed, it would have made the main R&B chart. Anyway, since we don't know who is making these determinations and why, which charts a song reaches should not play a factor into what genre the song may fall under. <span style="color:blue">Star</span><span style="color:orange">cheers</span><span style="color:green">peaks</span><span style="color:red">news</span>lost<span style="color:blue">wars</span><sup>[[User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars|Talk to me]]</sup> 18:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
::The only site I've ever run across which uses the symbol does so through an embedded image. Is there a way to add an image to a Wikipedia article such that it appears as part of the prose (rather than breaking up the paragraph the way a normal thumbnail image would)? [[User:Martin IIIa|Martin IIIa]] ([[User talk:Martin IIIa|talk]]) 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
::: |
:::This is pretty much a ''[[Love Symbol]]'' case. [[:File:Prince logo.svg]] was determined to be exclusively used on [[Prince (musician)]]'s page as at some point he used it as an alternative name. His biography's running text has an example on how the image can be used as part of the prose. Keep in mind that this logo is likely to be copyrighted (despite its simplicity) and that ''[[The Story of I]]'' has too many copyrighted files already. [[WP:CC-BY-SA|(CC)]] [[User:Tbhotch|<span style="color:#4B0082;">Tb</span><span style="color:#6082B6;">hotch</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tbhotch|<span style="color:#555555;">™</span>]]</sup> 20:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::Thanks. I'd been planning to remove the images of the inner gatefold and inner sleeve anyway since they don't seem to serve any function in the article; would that help with the copyright issue? It does seem like adding the album's title couldn't make the copyright issue any worse, since a rendering of it already appears in the images of the inner sleeve and front cover. [[User:Martin IIIa|Martin IIIa]] ([[User talk:Martin IIIa|talk]]) 21:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Lacking sources to the contrary, yes it would. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 19:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::: |
:::::Note that I already marked them for deletion. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 21:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::: And that's why we're here. In short, if an article is lacking sources other than charting, it probably shouldn't have an article. However, charting has become a stand-in for reliably sourced content about albums and singles. So if we accept that a song has charted on the country charts, the metal charts and the jazz charts, it's safe to say it has some credibility in those genres. Without sources to the contrary, we have to accept that charting as an accurate representation of the subject's genre. |
|||
:::::: If, however, we want to state that we need more than charting to signify a subject is notable (with respect to singles and albums) I can agree to stating that charting is not sufficient for determining a work's genre. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 20:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{xt|Without sources to the contrary, we have to accept that charting as an accurate representation of the subject's genre.}} I still have not been (and probably cannot be) convinced that this is necessarily true; sure, while we can use it as a start, it should remain challengeable. '''[[User:DannyMusicEditor|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">danny</span><small>music</small><span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">editor</span>]]''' <sup> [[User talk:DannyMusicEditor|oops]] </sup> 20:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: Can you accept that charting alone is a measure of notability? If not, then we are in agreement. If so, then you have to argue that the people who create those charts are including content in genre-specific charts that do not belong there. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 20:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}} |
|||
I'm guessing this also applies to music award categories like the [[Grammys]]? [[User:Magiciandude|Erick]] ([[User talk:Magiciandude|talk]]) 21:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Magiciandude}} That was not the initial question, and I've supported use of them in the past as genre descriptors, but I'd be willing to change my mind on that if it helps with the consistency of my case, which I think it probably does. |
|||
:{{ping|Walter Görlitz}} The answer to that question depends on the recording. Did it hit multiple charts, and/or did it perform well on at least one of them? Is it the only thing that otherwise would render the song non-notable? If the answer is no to both of the former and/or yes to the latter, than probably not. Why do you ask? <small>(This song's article seems fine to me.)</small> I still don't see how that makes me agree with you. I sometimes ''do'' think that the "people who create those charts are including content in genre-specific charts that do not belong there". Maybe I'm missing or don't fully understand something in your argument. '''[[User:DannyMusicEditor|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">danny</span><small>music</small><span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">editor</span>]]''' <sup> [[User talk:DannyMusicEditor|oops]] </sup> 21:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: I think we're on the same page, just approaching the answer differently. I disagree that charting ''alone'' should be enough to show the notability of a subject for inclusion. However, if that's all we have, and the consensus is that it is enough, then why is charting not enough to support the claim of a specific genre? I too agree that it shouldn't be, but we can't use it it one case and ignore it in the other. I'm suggesting consistency. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 22:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: It's not always consensus that it is enough. [[WP:NSONGS]] says that a song (or recording) may be notable if it {{xt|"Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song ''may'' be notable, not that it ''is'' notable.)"}} As you think, it is not a guarantee of notability, and consensus is not ''always'' that it is enough. Another example would be "[[Elite (song)|Elite]]", a [[Deftones]] song which won a Grammy Award, but could not prove notability beyond that because it ended up having no other coverage and becoming a [[WP:PERMASTUB]]. <small>(At the time it had an article, for the record, it had sourced genres on it IIRC.)</small> I digress slightly, but my counter-point is that the rules are written in a way that does not say it's always consensus to let the simple fact that the song charted or won an award be enough to make a subject notable, even if we usually accept that (probably a little more often than we should), so we don't necessarily have to be in line with anything like you're suggesting if what NSONGS asserts is indeed the case. I do get where you're coming from now, though. <small>(Did I understand what you meant correctly?)</small> '''[[User:DannyMusicEditor|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">danny</span><small>music</small><span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">editor</span>]]''' <sup> [[User talk:DannyMusicEditor|oops]] </sup> 01:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Yes. So we agree that charting isn't always enough to support notability for either a song or an album. If there aren't enough sources to support something about the work, we should probably get rid of the article. In this case, there are no RSes for that article, aside from its charting, to support anything: genre, lyrical analysis, production challenges, etc. As a result we it might make as much sense to delete it as it would be to delete the unsourced genre. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 01:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Wait, that analysis by Cooper isn't reliable? And, if we're not having this article, I would prefer it redirected. '''[[User:DannyMusicEditor|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">danny</span><small>music</small><span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">editor</span>]]''' <sup> [[User talk:DannyMusicEditor|oops]] </sup> 02:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Agree. We should also redirect more PERMASTUBS with only charting. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 03:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Alright, so we've resolved ''this'' one, but what about the odd ones which don't have sources for their genre but otherwise have a substantial amount of useful, sourced content? Those I'd still oppose having genres solely based on charts if I disagreed with them. They can be a good place to start, but should be allowed to be challenged, because again, sometimes the people who create those charts are including content in genre-specific charts that it is debatable whether that song even belongs there. The best thing to do is always to hear from reviewers, and that's not always possible. '''[[User:DannyMusicEditor|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">danny</span><small>music</small><span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">editor</span>]]''' <sup> [[User talk:DannyMusicEditor|oops]] </sup> 03:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Sometimes, concert reviews tags genre labels to a certain song. I cite those sometimes, particularly when they aren't stated in album reviews or anything. |
|||
:::::::: Citing genres can be tricky sometimes though. In my past searchings of some genres a song may have been categorized as, there's a lot of points where they aren't specific enough, using terms like "influences" or "this song has a *insert genre here*-chorus. But how a certain song is categorized from the source, that can be determined through local consensus on the talk page. [[User:Kokoro20|Kokoro20]] ([[User talk:Kokoro20|talk]]) 04:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: That's the underlying issue for me. If charting isn't a RS, then we shouldn't use it to help establish notability. Ultimately, I would fall back on the advice at [[:WP:GWAR]]. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 06:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: Oh charting is a RS, just that alone cannot ''always'' prove notability. '''[[User:DannyMusicEditor|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">danny</span><small>music</small><span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">editor</span>]]''' <sup> [[User talk:DannyMusicEditor|oops]] </sup> 06:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}} Bumping this thread so it doesn't get archived. I want to continue on this, but I cannot at the moment. I'd prefer to get a more Wikipedia-encompassing viewpoint rather than this one specific article. '''[[User:DannyMusicEditor|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">danny</span><small>music</small><span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">editor</span>]]''' <sup> [[User talk:DannyMusicEditor|oops]] </sup> 12:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
==Re-recorded albums== |
|||
== Is HotNewHipHop a reliable source? == |
|||
I wanted to write stuff on a re-recorded album on my favourite band [[Coldrain]] who have just released a re-recorded ''[[Final Destination (album)|Final Destination]]'' for its fifteenth anniversary. I wasn't sure if I was meant to add it to the original article or make it its article, per what's been done with [[Taylor Swift]]'s re-releases. But I figured that was down to because there was so much information available on those re-recordings or whatnot. What is the general consensus for bands who do re-recordings of their albums? Make it their own article or just add it to the original article? A bit puzzled on what to do, and I can't find any information on this either so figured this is what I should have done by asking this question here, so sorry if it's not in the appropriate place. I would greatly appreciate a response, thanks. [[User:Rockmusicfanatic20|Rockmusicfanatic20]] ([[User talk:Rockmusicfanatic20|talk]]) 21:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The current article is pretty much a stub with a tracklist, so I'd just add it there. There's no need for a separate article when the current one is so bare bones. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 21:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
There have been a debate over the website ''HotNewHipHop''. The website was added in multiple hip hop-related articles but nobody never question the website is reliable enough or should be added in [[WP:ALBUM/SOURCES]]. Should this website classified as reliable or unreliable. [[User:TheAmazingPeanuts|TheAmazingPeanuts]] ([[User talk:TheAmazingPeanuts|talk]]) 20:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::To add on to that, re-recorded albums (''[[1989 (Taylor's Version)]]'', ''[[Red (Taylor's Version)]]'') and reissue albums (''[[The Fame Monster]]'' and ''[[Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded]]'') are only notable in their own rites if they have significant enough coverage. As Sergecross said, the Coldrain album is basically a stub/start class article so you can just add the re-recording to the same page. – '''[[User:Zmbro|zmbro]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Zmbro|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Zmbro|cont]])</sub> 21:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:What did the prior discussions say? It’s good to recap that as a starting point. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 01:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: And why would it be "an reliable source"? It would be "a reliable source", wouldn't it? [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 01:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|Walter Görlitz}} Sorry about my bad grammar, my English isn't good sometimes. [[User:TheAmazingPeanuts|TheAmazingPeanuts]] ([[User talk:TheAmazingPeanuts|talk]]) 20:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::In case project members are unaware, the Wikipedia article for this website has been put up for AfD at [[Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/HotNewHipHop]], which is probably what has sparked TheAmazingPeanuts' question... not that a website needs to have a Wikipedia article to be considered reliable, of course. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 01:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::: {{ec}} Quite alright. Thanks for fixing it. The discussion we had last time concluded it was reliable and I started by suggesting a discussion at [[:WP:RSN]] would be the better option. Regardless, is there a reason you think it might not be reliable? [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 01:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{ping|Richard3120}} and {{ping|Walter Görlitz}} Well in case you don't know, an editor named [[User talk:STATicVapor|STATicVapor]] think the website is not reliable because it's not added in [[WP:ALBUM/SOURCES]]. I almost got in a edit war but I decided against it and just start a discussion here instead. [[User:TheAmazingPeanuts|TheAmazingPeanuts]] ([[User talk:TheAmazingPeanuts|talk]]) 20:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{u|STATicVapor}} is a pretty knowledgeable editor who used to be more active a few years back. I imagine his stance is a bit more nuanced than “it’s not on the list”. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 02:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{ping|Sergecross73}} If you look at the edit summary of this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Father_of_4&type=revision&diff=888104587&oldid=887849408 here], I can't help to get the impression of why they think it's a unreliable source. [[User:TheAmazingPeanuts|TheAmazingPeanuts]] ([[User talk:TheAmazingPeanuts|talk]]) 21:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
'''Yes''' - I was solicited here. They clearly have [https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/staff.html editorial oversight], and I noticed from a quick skim of their staff that one of their contributors is Mike Madden, whose name I recognize from ''[[Consequence of Sound]]''; maybe there are more contributors of relative experience too. I see that the website's article is up for deletion, and I can't speak on the notability or adequacy of third-party coverage for it to have an article of its own, but this should be an adequate source for its target audience/article topic: hip hop. [[User:Dan56|Dan56]] ([[User talk:Dan56|talk]]) 01:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Album of the Year == |
|||
FYI, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_55#HotNewHipHop_and_Salute_Magazine here] was our last discussion on it. I imagine it didn’t go on either list because we were a bit split on our stance on it. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 02:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: Basically, I came across the source used in many articles and used as a reviewer in Critical reception sections. Back when I used to edit heavy 2010–2014, I was always under the impression it wasn't reliable and was more of a blog in nature. I don't know if anything has changed in their editoral oversight since then, but I checked RSN and this Wikiproject archives and found only the discussion linked above. Upon reading, it seemed like the consensus was that it was not very reliable, but okay to use for minor non-BLP claims such as album releases. I then checked the style guide for this Wikiproject. It said that for critical reception sections: "The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc. A list of some sources of professional reviews is available at [[WP:ALBUM/SOURCES]]." I then checked [[WP:ALBUM/SOURCES]] and since HotNewHipHop was not there I removed it from the few album articles I came across. Sorry if I misunderstood the consensus it seemed [[User:Sergecross73]] and [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] thought it was either unreliable, or limited reliable. '''[[User:STATicVapor|StaticVapor]] <small>[[User talk:STATicVapor|<span style="vertical-align:super;">message me!</span>]]</small>''' 02:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Yes'''. I think it's fine to use, as it's been around for years and is well-known in reporting on hip hop news in that sector, and as pointed out by Dan56/from when I've looked in the past, I believe it has editorial oversight and is not just some run-of-the-mill blog or tabloid-like website. I also believe [[WP:ALBUM/SOURCES]] says it's not an exhaustive list, doesn't it? Or one of those pages listing good sources does... <b>[[User:Ss112|<span style="color: #FF6347;">Ss</span>]]<small>[[User talk:Ss112|<span style="color: #1E90FF;">112</span>]]</small></b> 03:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Reliable''' for article text under a byline. This website gets a lot of traffic and has paid staff attending to it. Traffic is reported as 590,000 sessions per day, or 17.7 million sessions per month.[https://www.rank2traffic.com/hotnewhiphop.com] The writing has editorial oversight by Rose Lilah, editor-in-chief. Lilah is considered an expert on the topic, having been quoted [https://books.google.com/books?id=NxeDDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA71 in this book] about the hip hop sub-genre of trap, and having been invited to speak on a panel about [https://www.sxsw.com/music/2018/digital-strategies-sync-stream-license-track-sessions-sxsw-2018/ digital strategies in hip hop] at SXSW 2018. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 18:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Reliable''' not only it has an editorial oversight which is mandatory in this case and some of their contributors have written for COS, Idolator, and other publications. Furthermore several articles from other magazines get some of their information from HotNewHipHop, such as XXL magazine. [[User:MarioSoulTruthFan|MarioSoulTruthFan]] ([[User talk:MarioSoulTruthFan|talk]]) 22:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:*'''Comment:''' Sounds like we have consensus that they are a reliable source. Now that this website was discussed, we can always point back to this thread. Question, so are they also a notable reviewer to use in critical reception sections/review score boxes? '''[[User:STATicVapor|StaticVapor]] <small>[[User talk:STATicVapor|<span style="vertical-align:super;">message me!</span>]]</small>''' 10:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|STATicVapor}} I think the website is a notable reviewer to use in critical reception/review score boxes, since they do have a score rating system and they do review albums from popular hip hop artists. [[User:TheAmazingPeanuts|TheAmazingPeanuts]] ([[User talk:TheAmazingPeanuts|talk]]) 03:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Would Album of the Year (AOTY) be reliable as a critic aggregator? The website clearly separates professional critic reviews from user reviews.<span id="LunaEclipse:1716943751661:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Albums" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:LunaEclipse|🌙'''E<span style="color:pink">cl</span><span style="color:HotPink">i</span><span style="color:pink">ps</span>e''']] <sup>([[User talk:LunaEclipse|talk]])</sup> <sup>([[Special:Contributions/LunaEclipse|contribs]])</sup> 00:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|||
== Seeking help getting a GA review over finish line == |
|||
I did an [[Talk:Emotion: Side B/GA1|initial review]] of [[Emotion: Side B]] as a Good Article candidate. Unfortunately, I didn't notice until afterward that the nominator ([[User:Diplomat's Son]]) has been inactive for over 4 months. I'm wondering if anyone would be willing to step in for them and address the review comments to bring the article up to GA status. I think the article is already very close to meeting the GA criteria, and addressing the review comments shouldn't take much time. I'd much rather see this article end up as a GA rather than have to fail it on a technicality. [[User:Colin M|Colin M]] ([[User talk:Colin M|talk]]) 20:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Ping|Colin M}} I just saw this post. Did you find someone to step in on the nominator's behalf? If not, I'd gladly do so. —[[User:Brandt Luke Zorn|BLZ]] · [[User talk:Brandt Luke Zorn|talk]] 19:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::{{re|Brandt Luke Zorn}} I have not found anyone. If you don't mind stepping in, it'd be very much appreciated! [[User:Colin M|Colin M]] ([[User talk:Colin M|talk]]) 17:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:This has been discussed before and was agreed to not be good as a direct source, since they have no editorial standards. It is very useful for finding reliable sources to add here ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources|note that not all sources they use are considered reliable]]) and should be added to [[:d:]]. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 00:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Dutch needed == |
|||
:It's already listed on [[WP:NOTRSMUSIC]], along with a link to the discussion that got it listed there. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 01:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I'm looking for someone who knows Dutch. Due to [https://nvpi.nl/nvpi-audio/marktinformatie/goud-platina/ NVPI] not provides exact cerification date and requirements [https://web.archive.org/web/20140706093520/http://www.nvpi.nl/reglement changed] on 1 July 2014 I need article about this certifaction with date so I'm looking for something like [https://web.archive.org/web/20140819083607/http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/boulevard/entertainment/album-stromae-al-een-jaar-hitlijsten this] article (about second platinum which is not included in NVPI base). [[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] ([[User talk:Eurohunter|talk]]) 20:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think NVPI give out multiple platinum certifications anyway, so no single or album in the Netherlands has more than one platinum certification. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 22:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::{{re|Richard3120}} Check [https://nvpi.nl/nvpi-audio/marktinformatie/goud-platina/ this] link and "Aantal" rubric. There are multiple platinum certifications like Esko, Josylvio, Hansie - "Hey Meisje" or Davina Michelle - "Duurt Te Lang". [[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] ([[User talk:Eurohunter|talk]]) 23:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::My mistake, you are correct. But if NVPI doesn't show ''Racine Carrere'' as double platinum, then I don't see how you can add that to the article. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 23:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::: {{re|Richard3120}} I noticed this fact but article from [[RTL Boulevard]] clearly says that album received second platinum "De Franse artiest Stromae staat vrijdag precies een jaar in de hitlijsten. Zijn met dubbel platina bekroonde album Racine Carrée staat deze week op nummer 3 in de Album Top 100.". I will look if there is more sources for second platinum in Dutch media. [[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] ([[User talk:Eurohunter|talk]]) 00:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I know the article says that, but if it's not on the official NVPI website, I don't think we can accept that. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 00:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{re|Richard3120}} Finally I found article about first platinum. NU.nl [https://www.nu.nl/muziek/3722824/stromae-krijgt-platina-plaat.html says] that "Formidable" also received platinum which is not included in NVPI base. Btw. do you know how I schould source it in discography? It requires to use NVPI page for certification, NU.nl article for certification date, archived NVPI requirements page after 1 July 2014 and the same url archived before this date with requirements after 1 June 2009 for evidence that requirements changed after ceryfication date. [[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] ([[User talk:Eurohunter|talk]]) 10:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Anyway would be helpfull if someone Dutch speaking could look for articles about first platinum for this album so we would have clarified requirements in few articles. [[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] ([[User talk:Eurohunter|talk]]) 08:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Requested move at [[Talk:Too Many Humans.....#Requested move 17 May 2024]] == |
|||
==Reverb.com== |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:Too Many Humans.....#Requested move 17 May 2024]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Another source check request: [https://reverb.com/ Reverb.com]. Specifically its [https://reverb.com/news?category_name=Gear+History articles on musical instrument history]. [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 03:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC) (edit: sorry about deleting the "Dutch needed" thread earlier - that was a fuckup. [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 08:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)) |
|||
:I’m not sure. I mean, it looks professional, but [https://reverb.com/page/about it’s About Us page] puts an awful high emphasis on the selling product side of things, with little mention on professional staff, editorial policy, or much in regards to the writing/journalism side at all... [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Right. It's basically a shop. So it's a question of how much we trust the editorial side of things... [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 06:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Tradfolk == |
||
Is [https://www.udiscovermusic.com/news/stromae-selling-million/ uDiscoverMusic] reliable source for worldwide sales? [[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] ([[User talk:Eurohunter|talk]]) 09:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: It's the news website for Universal Records, which is Stromae's record label. So it's not independent. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 11:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, to that effect, it appears to be reliable, with oversight from such a massive corporation, and [https://www.udiscovermusic.com/about-us/ a team of professional writers who have written for many other reliable sources], though you’d want to exercise caution on any extraordinary claims made about their own artists. I’d treat it in line with what [[WP:PRIMARY]] says basically. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 16:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Is [https://tradfolk.co/about-tradfolk-co/ this source] acceptable as a [[WP:RS]] for album reviews? Here's a recent [https://tradfolk.co/music/reviews/ship-to-shore-richard-thompson/ example]. Thanks. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 11:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== New Zealand certyfications == |
|||
Is there any way to check certyfications in New Zealand expect visiting certian chart pages at [https://nztop40.co.nz/chart/singles nztop40.co.nz]? [[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] ([[User talk:Eurohunter|talk]]) 13:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:The only other official place I know that includes certifications is Dean Scapolo's book ''The Complete New Zealand Music Charts 1966–2006''. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 17:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Leaning no. One of the best ways to tell the reliability of a publication is by seeing that their writers also feature in other reliable pubs, thus establishing them as [[subject-matter expert]]s. In this case, I could find that, per this site's author bios, [https://tradfolk.co/author/gavin-mcnamara/ Gavin McNamara] has written for ''[[the Big Issue]]'' and ''[[Metal Hammer]]'' and editor [[Jon Wilks]] ([https://tradfolk.co/author/jon/ bio]) has written for a handful of reliables. Past that, I didn't see anything of the sort. It may help that Wilks is himself (maybe) notable enough for his own article, at least for his music career, but its hitting at a bare minimum level that is too close for comfort for me. [[User:QuietHere|QuietHere]] ([[User talk:QuietHere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/QuietHere|contributions]]) 12:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Help with article -- understanding sources for charts / release dates == |
|||
Related to this discussion--what's the best practice for an article like ''[[Ship to Shore (Richard Thompson album)|Ship to Shore]]''? All the ratings are shoved in the prose, instead of using the ratings template, which seems like the worst of all options as it leads to a clunky and ugly section (in my opinion). I think the template is useful, but I've also declined to add it a few times, and just didn't mention ratings at all. Is this regarded as a personal, status quo editorial choice? Does the community have a policy if an editor chooses to add a template (I don't plan on it, but it seems inevitable)? Cheers to Justin and Martin (and the great Richard Thompson), just thought it was best to start here... [[User:Caro7200|Caro7200]] ([[User talk:Caro7200|talk]]) 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hi, I've written ''[[Liaisons: Re-Imagining Sondheim from the Piano]]'', and as this is my first article about an album I'm having a few hiccups. It was easy enough to figure out the Charts for the ''Billboard'' weekly US Top Classical Albums chart, I was able to find that information for the album here [https://www.billboard.com/music/Anthony-de-Mare/chart-history/classical-albums/song/939380], and then confirm the peak position and how many weeks it was on the charts just by checking the individual charts the weeks of [https://www.billboard.com/charts/classical-albums/2015-10-17 2015-10-17] (16, new), [https://www.billboard.com/charts/classical-albums/2015-10-24 2015-10-24] (15 ↑), [https://www.billboard.com/charts/classical-albums/2015-10-31 2015-10-31] (22 ↓), and [https://www.billboard.com/charts/classical-albums/2015-11-14 2015-11-14] (20 re-entry). Easy enough. |
|||
:Perhaps best to have a discussion ''[[Talk:Ship to Shore (Richard Thompson album)]]?'' [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 19:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
However I ran into issues trying to do the same thing for the category Classical Crossover Albums. I wasn't able to find a similar page with overall information like I could find for its standings on the Top Classical Albums chart, but I was able to find a few pages labeled "Artist Index" for ''Billboard'', and they seemed to provide the same information? The key at the top of the page said CX (Classical Crossover), and the ones I was able to find said: [https://www.billboard.com/files/index/artistindex_10_17_2015.pdf Oct 17 2015] "Anthony de Mare: CX 11"; [https://www.billboard.com/files/index/artistindex_10_24_2015.pdf Oct 24 2015]; "Anthony de Mare: CX 11"; [https://www.billboard.com/files/index/artistindex_11_14_2015.pdf Nov 14 2015] "Anthony de Mare: CX 15". Are these valid sources? Why can't I find anything else about the weekly Classical Crossover Albums charts? Is it original research to say its peak position was 11 just cause that was the highest one I could find? Help on this would be appreciated. |
|||
::Maybe, but I think it's an issue that pertains to the entire project. This seems to be a relatively new trend (albeit a rarely used one): editors wanting to mention many ratings in prose rather than starting with a ratings template. I don't think it's a helpful choice, but my guess is that it isn't wrong for, in this case, Justin, to decline to use one, just as it isn't against policy for another editor to decide eventually to shift up to 10 ratings to an added template. [[User:Caro7200|Caro7200]] ([[User talk:Caro7200|talk]]) 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, I'm sure it's a good idea to discuss that. Somewhere I just wanted a discussion and consensus view on Tradfolk. Thanks. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 07:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Caro7200|Caro7200]] this page is a good venue for this discussion, but it's off-topic regarding the query Martin came in with and should've been given its own section, which you could always do now and just link back here for context. [[User:QuietHere|QuietHere]] ([[User talk:QuietHere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/QuietHere|contributions]]) 11:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Requested move at [[Talk:Il Mare Calmo della Sera#Requested move 27 May 2024]] == |
|||
I'm also looking for help on where to get reliable sources for release date information. Like I just came across [https://www.universal-music.co.jp/p/481-1780/ this] -- is this a valid source to say it was released in Japan on 11 Nov 2015? It doesn't say that explicitly, it just gives that as the release date and it's a Japanese site. I also got a lot of random commercial websites saying 25 Sept 2015, 2 October 2015, 16 October 2015, 11 November 2015, etc., but I'm not seeing any explicit information about release history that gives an indication of which areas got which dates. Closest I got was from the album's Facebook page, but that's hardly a source appropriate for Wikipedia, and it also seems inaccurate since it said 2 Oct was the international release date so it's unclear how that works with the Japanese site given above. I'm tempted just to continue having no information on release history just since it's all so confusing -- not to mention sources aren't explicit as to if they refer to physical discs or digital downloads. |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:Il Mare Calmo della Sera#Requested move 27 May 2024]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== ''[[Illmatic]]'' == |
|||
Thank you for your help, I'm sure I'm just missing some database or something for both of these questions, hopefully I'm making sense. [[User:Umimmak|Umimmak]] ([[User talk:Umimmak|talk]]) 06:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Hmmm, I'm not sure there's an answer to your question. I've been looking through the print versions of ''Billboard'' from October/November 2015, and although they have 20 pages of all types of charts (Gospel, Holiday, Latin, etc.) there are no Classical charts of any kind. It seems like ''Billboard'' has given up on the idea of classical music and charts completely, which means it's going to be very difficult to find any information about the Classical Crossover that you were asking about. Maybe "CX" and the other abbreviations are simply a way of defining the genre of the release, not of a particular chart. |
|||
To address issues with this article's length, I have opened a discussion at [[Talk:Illmatic#Split proposal]] that may be of interest to this WikiProject.<span id="LunaEclipse:1717463268753:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Albums" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:LunaEclipse|🌙'''E<span style="color:pink">cl</span><span style="color:HotPink">i</span><span style="color:pink">ps</span>e''']] <sup>([[User talk:LunaEclipse|talk]])</sup> <sup>([[Special:Contributions/LunaEclipse|contribs]])</sup> 01:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|||
:The Universal Music website is the website of the artist's record company, so I think they of all people should know the release date for their own album in that particular territory. But as you, say, there's so much conflicting information about the release date. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 14:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== ratings template v. use in prose == |
|||
::{{ping|Richard3120}} thank you very much for checking the print volumes of ''Billboard''; I greatly appreciate that as those are not something I had access to. But it leaves me more confused than ever about the existence of “[[Classical Crossover Albums]]” as a category. Those three “Artist Index” PDFs certainly look like charts for those three weeks, with the CX 11/11/15 weeks all corresponding to weeks it was on the more documented [[Top Classical Albums]] chart, but it’s hardly conclusive... |
|||
As, uh, mentioned only slightly above this thread: |
|||
::The catalog page on ECM Records [https://www.ecmrecords.com/catalogue/1443511837/liaisons-re-imagining-sondheim-from-the-piano-anthony-de-mare] only lists Oct 2 as a release date, but I’ve found various press releases or reviews either say “Sep 25”, or just less helpfully “September” or “last month” for articles written in that October. I’m guessing it’s a US/international thing, but nowhere says this explicitly—let alone explicitly explains where Oct 2 was the date, vs Nov 11 (Japan?), vs Oct 16 (seemingly the UK date as per Amazon [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Liaisons-Re-imagining-Sondheim-Anthony-Mare/dp/B01356S69W], though that isn’t really a source). Is it typical to have such difficulty finding secondary sources about the release history which are explicit and don’t require interpretation? [[User:Umimmak|Umimmak]] ([[User talk:Umimmak|talk]]) 14:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, it's not usually difficult to find release dates for pop/rock albums in the modern era, because there are so many websites covering those genres. Classical music is not my area, but I'm guessing there are considerably fewer reputable online websites that cover the genre. Maybe the established print magazines dedicated to classical music would have release dates, but I suspect those aren't easily available to you either. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 14:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
What's the best practice for an article like ''[[Ship to Shore (Richard Thompson album)|Ship to Shore]]''? All the ratings are shoved in the prose, instead of using the ratings template, which seems like the worst of all options as it leads to a clunky and ugly section (in my opinion). I think the template is useful, but I've also declined to add it a few times, and just didn't mention ratings at all. Is this regarded as a personal, status quo editorial choice? Does the community have a policy if an editor chooses to add a template (I don't plan on it, but it seems inevitable)? Cheers to Justin and Martin (and the great Richard Thompson), just thought it was best to start here... |
|||
== Discussion of [[Wiwibloggs]] and Eurovix on the reliable sources noticeboard == |
|||
I think it's an issue that pertains to the entire project. This seems to be a relatively new trend (albeit a rarely used one): editors wanting to mention many ratings in prose rather than starting with a ratings template. I don't think it's a helpful choice, but my guess is that it isn't wrong for, in this case, Justin, to decline to use one, just as it isn't against policy for another editor to decide eventually to shift up to 10 ratings to an added template. [[User:Caro7200|Caro7200]] ([[User talk:Caro7200|talk]]) 11:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
There is a discussion on the [[WP:RS|reliability]] of [[Wiwibloggs]] (wiwibloggs.com) and Eurovix (eurovix.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at {{slink|WP:RSN|Wiwibloggs and Eurovoix}}. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 09:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:I was under the impression that listing scores in prose is discouraged, but I can't seem to find any mentions of it right now. That's certainly how the vast majority of featured articles about albums is written, and FAs are our best articles and examples of how articles should be written. The use of the template is not a requirement, though. As for this specific article, personally, I wouldn't put the template in the current version. On my 1080p screen the infobox already pushed the quote box into track listing section. And I agree with you that in general it's a bad choice and score-filled prose looks clunky. <span style="background:#16171c; font-family:monospace; font-weight:600; padding:5px; box-shadow:#9b12f0 2px -2px">[[User:AstonishingTunesAdmirer|<span style="color:#ff29f8">AstonishingTunesAdmirer</span>]] [[User talk:AstonishingTunesAdmirer|連絡]]</span> 16:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:As AstonishingTunesAdmirer said, it's not a requirement (and I doubt we could justifiably make it one), but personally I do find it overcrowds the prose and can make the section difficult to read with all the ratings included there. The express purpose of this template is to reduce this kind of crowding by placing the information in a convenient, off-to-the-side place, and I much prefer having it that way. I don't really see the point in not using it. I'm also not sure I know many editors who don't; I know [[User:Koavf|Koavf]] never does (a comment as to why would be appreciated and valuable to this discussion), but he's the only one I know of who consistently does so. [[User:QuietHere|QuietHere]] ([[User talk:QuietHere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/QuietHere|contributions]]) 20:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I used to add it, but now I much prefer a {{tl|quote-box}} that I think is much more interesting and gives useful context instead of {{tl|music ratings}} which ''discourages'' reading the reception section. See ''[[To All Trains]]'', for instance, where I think that the quote box there is fun and elucidates something about the album release. And if you add ''both'' a quote-box and music ratings, it generally pushes these divs way down into the body of the article. It's just not necessary and generally encourages the wrong kind of behavior, which is not really reading the article. If you ''really'' want to know how many stars <var>[outlet]</var> gave an album, I always put what the ratings are in the body of the text, so someone can press <kbd>Ctrl+f</kbd> and find that specific score. Does that make any sense? {{shrug}} ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 20:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Makes perfect sense to me and is pretty much exactly what I was expecting you to say. Personally, I find the quote-box being that small and pushed off to the side discourages me from reading, and would rather something like that be included in its own section, but I get what you mean. Definitely can't have both. I do still think the overcrowding of prose is an issue though. [[User:QuietHere|QuietHere]] ([[User talk:QuietHere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/QuietHere|contributions]]) 23:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Also worth noting that the quote boxes on ''Ship to Shore ''and ''To All Trains'' both have fonts at 85% of normal size, just barely at the lower limit allowed by [[MOS:SMALL|SMALL]]. I don't know how strict that line is, but scraping that close to it seems like something that perhaps shouldn't be encouraged. [[User:QuietHere|QuietHere]] ([[User talk:QuietHere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/QuietHere|contributions]]) 23:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Additionally, I hate sub-100% text in principle and usually cannot read it. I agree that it sucks. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 23:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::As I hope would be clear to others (but isn't always because I am sometimes not so collaborative), please do amend the boxes as they meet best practice or make more sense to you. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 23:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for your kind words, Caro and your helpful edits: I have seen you correct errors and generally improve articles that I have written, so I am grateful. I have given my reasoning below, but to be clear, I don't object to adding {{tl|music ratings}} nor do I have any [[WP:OWN|ownership]] over any articles that I write, so if someone such as yourself thinks it's a really good idea to add it, then I wouldn't stand in the way. I'm just not motivated to add it myself. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 20:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks, likewise, appreciate the explanation. I believe in editorial freedom; the constant struggle for everyone is aligning that with broad acceptance, best practice, policy conventions, blah blah. And maybe part of the problem for new articles--unless you're Beyonce, Taylor, or the Stones--is that most of the initial info is in regard to critical reception, personnel, chart positions. There's not as much about backstory, inspiration, composition, recording, etc., so that many tend to be lopsided, creating weird spacing issues for weeks or months sometimes. Back in the day, Chicago media, at least, would have run general features on Shellac or Albini, RIP (and he was a producer, although I always admired the coyness...). Tours would have started, so there would have also been live reviews. Critical reception bloat may be inevitable--although ''[[Cowboy Carter]]'''s is pretty compact, given the size of the entire article. I do think some production grains can be sifted from professional reviews, which is worth doing when starting or expanding an article. Maybe British media will soon publish a few general album rollout features on Thompson... [[User:Caro7200|Caro7200]] ([[User talk:Caro7200|talk]]) 00:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Exactly. I wish there were more I could write on recording, release, and promotion, but on 90%+ of articles, there just won't be. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 01:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I think rating scores in prose is improper. It's best to leave the scores themselves to be visually viewed, then reviews laid out in prose. Although like others have said, there is no rule saying you can't, but personal preference I'd want ratings scores in templates not prose. – '''[[User:Zmbro|zmbro]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Zmbro|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Zmbro|cont]])</sub> 00:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Best-of lists == |
||
I have added several dozen (hundreds?) of sources to album articles where the critical reception puts it on best of lists. E.g. see the tables at ''[[The Greater Wings]]''. I added a number of these today and {{u|Ariaslaga}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fabiana_Palladino&diff=0&oldid=1227297675 removed] one as "fluff". If other users think these are inappropriate, I'm not going to keep on adding hundreds to just be removed and waste my time. Do others agree that this shouldn't be added? If others agree with me, then someone please undo this removal. Thanks. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 00:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[Project talk:WikiProject Record Labels]] looks dead for me (last answered questions in 2017), would you be interested to adopt it wholesale? Otherwise it could be also tagged as '''inactive''', because the rules for '''defunct''' appear to be harder than reviving a dead project, or restarting WikiPedia from scratch.{{=P}} {{ping|EddieHugh}} Your answer in 2018 not withstanding. I somehow got involved in [[RWG Records|two]] [[Draft:Pendu Sound Recordings|or]] [[Coptic Cat|more]] indie labels. –[[Special:Contributions/84.46.52.44|84.46.52.44]] ([[User talk:84.46.52.44|talk]]) 20:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Ha! You know, if the sources are there... [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 23:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, whatever it is that we do when WikiProjects die, we should do here. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 23:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::We should probably notify {{u|78.26}} and {{u|Chubbles}} of this discussion, as they seem to be the editors currently most actively interested in record labels, and ask them for their opinions. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 12:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well, for what it's worth, I still actively monitor the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Labels/Article alerts|article alerts]], and add the project tags as appropriate. It's not dead. It's not inactive, it's just mostly inactive/on life support. It's not '''my''' fault nobody wants to talk about [[:Angelophone Records]]! {{smiley}} A lot of the activity is of course for recent rap/EDM/"alternative" labels, which rarely catches my interest. P.S. thanks for the ping {{u|Richard3120}}. [[User:78.26|<span style="border:1px solid black;color:red; padding:1px;background:1h5h1h; color: #008B8B;"><b>78.26</b></span>]] <sub>([[User talk:78.26|spin me]] / [[Special:Contributions/78.26|revolutions]])</sub> 13:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't know if this is a larger trend, but most of the projects and noticeboards I used to watch have essentially petered out. Wherever interest in record labels is directed, I hope it tends toward music projects, and not business ones. [[User:Chubbles|Chubbles]] ([[User talk:Chubbles|talk]]) 08:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:The only real record label article I've had experience editing is [[Monstercat]], and even then, there could still be more to write about. I know it can be tough when a WikiProject approaches inactivity. Take [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music]] for example. Though I can see bits of activity here and there, I don't see much when it comes to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music/projects|projects]] section, which I have already submitted projects to. [[User:JalenFolf|<span style="font-size:1.2em;font-family:eurofurence;background:#368ec9;color:black">Jalen D. Folf</span>]] [[User talk:JalenFolf|<span style="background:#6babd6;color:black">(talk)</span>]] 17:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Why can’t you undo it yourself? Are you trying to get people to proxy for you? [[User:Ariaslaga|Ariaslaga]] ([[User talk:Ariaslaga|talk]]) 00:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== RfC on categorizing all works by an artist by genre == |
|||
::I am under an editing restriction and cannot undo anyone's edits. I am asking the community to see the consensus around this because I don't want to have my work undone hundreds of times over. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Ah, I see. What is the editing restriction for, if you don’t mind my asking? [[User:Ariaslaga|Ariaslaga]] ([[User talk:Ariaslaga|talk]]) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't at all: it's public knowledge. I have engaged in [[WP:EDITWAR|edit-warring]], which is inappropriate. Hence, I am seeking to abide by the [[WP:DISPUTE|dispute resolution process]], which includes getting a third party to comment, including via WikiProjects. If I am doing something inappropriate now, please let me know. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 01:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Seriously? Dude, stand up for yourself. It sounds like whoever put that restriction on you was trying to make you humiliate yourself going forward as some kind of a power play. Don’t let them have that. I’ll revert myself on your behalf, it’s not that big of a deal to me. Just please don’t be a beta, you’re better than that. Everyone is better than that. [[User:Ariaslaga|Ariaslaga]] ([[User talk:Ariaslaga|talk]]) 01:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Well, it's nothing like that: my behavior was wrong and the community was valid to sanction me. I appreciate your time and encouragement. Thanks. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 01:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::This is absolutely terrible advice. Don't give unsolicited advice like this. Justin is handling things correctly, and your advice would do nothing but cause trouble. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 14:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{re|Sergecross73}} I'm not sure they're going to see your message as they were blocked a week ago (a little harshly, to be honest, I don't see any evidence of blatant vandalism in their edits). [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 16:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::[[Special:Diff/1227307985|This]] ([[content warning|CW]] mass shooter) looks plenty blatant to me, and paired with [[Special:Diff/1227499269|this]] I think the ban was the right move. Found both in [[User talk:Ariaslaga#Elliot Rodger|this talk page section]]. [[User:QuietHere|QuietHere]] ([[User talk:QuietHere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/QuietHere|contributions]]) 21:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Yeah, fair enough... not exactly the vandalism I was referring to, but that commentary certainly seems banworthy. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 02:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:With regard to the tables, I believe there is a consensus that there should be a maximum of 10 rows in accordance with [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]]. [[User:Heartfox|Heartfox]] ([[User talk:Heartfox|talk]]) 00:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Okay, in regards to the edit mentioned above, is it appropriate to keep it in the article or to remove it? ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't have a problem with year-end ratings, but I feel "so far this year" or "of the first six months of 2024" lists are a bit pointless. I note that Ariaslaga has been indeffed since this thread started. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 14:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Richard, using "pointless" as a rationale to remove perspectives from (specifically) reputable, reliable authors of a subject (as determined by [[WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources|this]], obviously) is not valid. Everything on this encyclopedia is pointless. Just because you find something "pointless", does not ban it from inclusion here. [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'm pretty certain Richard's point is that a "best of" list that doesn't even take an entire year into effect, may not show much importance. That's not an uncommon sentiment. I add them occasionally on more obscure song articles that don't have a ton in the way of awards or reception, but it's not really much of an achievement for some superstar to show up "''Billboard'''s Top 50 Hard Rock Albums of 2024 so far (published in April 2024.)" I mean, how many notable rock albums even came out over the course of 4 months? [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Users are to have whatever viewpoints they have on how sources give their perspectives on music, and that's fine. But no sourcing policy is based on whether users [[WP:ILIKEIT|like it]] or [[WP:IDONOTLIKEIT|not]]. I do not even care about any of the albums that have been discussed in relation to this topic. If users start removing critics' rankings over not personally finding any of them "important", [[WP:NPOV|that's pushing a point of view, and that is not the goal of an encyclopedia]]. [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Again, incorrect. We are not robots working off of a computer program. We are humans capable of editorial discretion. These sorts of decisions are made all the time. Just because an RS published content does not make it compulsory for inclusion. RS coverage is the bare minimum for inclusion, not a requirement. Please don't start this up again, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_accolades_received_by_Folklore your stance on this was thoroughly rejected last time.] [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 20:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Serge, [[WP:NOTTEXTBOOK|Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, textbook]] [[WP:NOTNEWS|magazine or newspaper]], and neither is this Simple English Wikipedia. This is regular English Wikipedia which expects more sophistication from its readers and is about anything. Whether the human species are able to have editorial discretion in the manner you are talking is irrelative to how much Wikipedia permits with its content. |
|||
::::::::Also, when it comes to that "rejection", you are talking about an AFD that took place six months that a small fraction of the users on this website participated in. We go off of current consensus agreed by all users, not what a random selection of users said in a specific topic page months ago. I had a way more hostile tone of voice and attitude than how I am commenting in this section currently that I am not proud of, which I imagine is the real reason other users were not willing to listen, and I have the right to give another go proper in case anyone has changed their minds. [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 20:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Also, has this WikiProject actually made these decisions besides the YE limit? If so, that is a big problem. [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 21:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I'm not wasting my time on this again. This is misguided advice no one follows, placed in the middle of a week old unrelated discussion. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 21:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I am going to start another section on this page against the 10-row limit, but this is a fact: [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] absolutely does not apply to rankings of what the best of thousands of records in specific time periods were from <u>journalists writing for publications of strong editorial standards</u>, as the examples provided are obviously [[WP:Primary sources]], such as opinion polls, user ratings on sites like AOTY or IMDb, or crime numbers published by police departments. Best-of lists from sources like ''NME'' and ''Under the Radar'' are not primary. [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 18:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::We've been through this before. It's not compulsory to include every single award/review an RS publishes. But yes, you should probably start a new discussion. Have you read this one all the way through? It already wrapped up days ago when the troublesome editor in question was indeffed. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I know what the section is about. It is about an editor who has been indefinitely block for vandalizing a page under the kind of rationale that's currently consensus on WikiProject Albums that I am disputing. [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{re|HumanxAnthro}} a question... what's your view on including both half-yearly and end-of-year rankings for an album? [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 18:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I am sorry for the delay in response because edit conflicts on this page prevented my comments from getting published, but it is not an opinion but rather the truth. It meets [[WP:WEIGHT]] to factor in all reliable sources. regardless if they are year-end lists or half-of-year-end lists. Therefore, it is the correct thing to do. [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::This also seems correct to me. In fact, a magazine posting a standard review seems {{em|less}} notable than saying that said album is one of the best of the mid-year. That's a more substantial coverage as far as I'm concerned. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 19:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:If there was any ranking that was from an unreliable source or not sourced at all, it's objectively "fluff" or unnecessary. If not, than the editor does not have a valid argument. [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 18:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== AFD input requested == |
|||
Project members are invited to participate in '''[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#RfC_on_categorizing_all_works_by_an_artist_by_genre|this RfC]]''' regarding the categorization of all works by an artist by genre. |
|||
Please see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beastie Boys Square]] - discussion is stagnant and needs further input. (While it's not explicitly an album, it is tied to one, as it's related to the cover of the album ''[[Paul's Boutique]]''.) |
|||
Thank you. ---[[User:Another Believer|<span style="color:navy">Another Believer</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Another Believer|<span style="color:#C60">Talk</span>]])</sub> 14:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks! [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 00:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Vintage Synth == |
|||
== PopMatters rating scale == |
|||
[http://www.vintagesynth.com/ Vintage Synth Explorer] is listed as a reliable source, but I can't find any discussion about it in the archives. Was it ever discussed? Is it really considered reliable? [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 15:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd been thinking about discussing this with you ever since you put up that batch of Roland articles for deletion. I agree it was probably too much in one go, but in general I agree with you that many individual models of synthesizer don't need their own article or pass individual notability. As we both know, many of these articles were created by the user Ijustwannabeawinner, who seemed to create about three articles a day, but who has been totally absent from Wikipedia since October 2018. Many of his articles are mostly or entirely dependent on references from Vintage Synth Explorer, and I did give him a friendly warning on his talk page that the reliability of that website was likely to be questioned. |
|||
:To be honest, what I see doesn't make me think it qualifies as an RS. The "About" page states that it started out as a one-person blog, and grew into a community website with contributions from its members – it's clear from this post [http://www.vintagesynth.com/articles/vintage-synth-explorer-alive] that it still depends heavily on the community members to supply its content. The one person who writes all the news articles, Naomi Bolton, has the job title of "community manager" rather than "journalist" <s>or even "editor"</s>. That just reinforces my belief that this is a crowdsourced website where anyone can contribute, and nobody is fact-checking any of the content. |
|||
:The website seems to have been added to the "reliable sources" list in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources&diff=643838627&oldid=642472103 this edit in January 2015] by {{u|3family6}}, an editor who used to be very active on WikiProject Albums but now edits more sporadically, and on other topics. I have no idea if these sources were added following a consensus decision, or unilaterally. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 16:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: We should feel free to remove it. No discussion here and none at RSN. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 16:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks for these responses, guys. I've removed it from the list. |
|||
:::{{ping|Richard3120}} My nomination was overzealous - I must have had too much coffee that day. But something really ought to be done about the abundance of terrible synth articles. They're just graveyard pages for enthusiasts to dump boring and uncited technical detail, and I still suspect many do not need to exist at all. (For example, I cover the various rereleases of the TR-808 in the [[TR-808]] article; can't we just do that for other similar ranges of gear?) If you have any ideas for how to go about looking at these pages as a team I'm all ears. [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 00:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:For what it’s worth, when I was cleaning up the list in summer 2017/2018/whenever, there were a lot of sources that didn’t appear to have ever been discussed. I started discussions on a bunch that I felt were especially reliable or unreliable, but there were a ton that I couldn’t tell from a brief glance that I just never got around to opening discussions for - I got burned out after a while between not getting much input, and it being tedious work when done en masse. (And it was tiresome dealing with “website defenders” who would complain about the treatment of their website of choice) Point being - there’s a lot of entries that have had minimal discussion, so don’t hold back on challenging them if you have specific, good-faith doubts and there’s no discussions linked. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 00:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Sergecross73}} Thanks for that, Serge. I'll bear that in mind. [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 04:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
PopMatters returned to a 10-point scale when they migrated their website to WordPress in January 2021. Here are two archives either side of the change (different albums, but the change in scale is clear): [https://web.archive.org/web/20210116004733/https://www.popmatters.com/swamp-dogg-love-loss-autotune-2602006947.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1 Swamp Dogg 2021-01-16], [https://web.archive.org/web/20210423055035/https://www.popmatters.com/189910-swamp-dogg-the-white-man-made-me-do-it-2495568382.html Swamp Dogg 2021-04-23]. [[User:GanzKnusper|GanzKnusper]] ([[User talk:GanzKnusper|talk]]) 08:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Discussion of ''The Singles Jukebox'' (thesinglesjukebox.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard == |
|||
:''PopMatters''{{'}} entry on [[WP:RSMUSIC|RSMUSIC]] already notes this. [[User:QuietHere|QuietHere]] ([[User talk:QuietHere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/QuietHere|contributions]]) 08:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
There is a discussion on the [[WP:RS|reliability]] of ''The Singles Jukebox'' (thesinglesjukebox.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at {{slink|WP:RSN|The Singles Jukebox}}. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 22:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes I added it 20 minutes ago. I put this here because I didn't want to stick these urls in the edit summary. [[User:GanzKnusper|GanzKnusper]] ([[User talk:GanzKnusper|talk]]) 08:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Ah, my mistake, didn't think to check. Might've helped if you'd mentioned that in the first place, but thank you regardless. [[User:QuietHere|QuietHere]] ([[User talk:QuietHere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/QuietHere|contributions]]) 09:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Is ''[[Latin Beat Magazine]]'' defunct? == |
|||
== Year-end list and musical genres == |
|||
The website latinbeatmagazine.com has been usurped. The last archive I could find was from [https://web.archive.org/web/20211024093530/http://latinbeatmagazine.com/ October 2021]. [[User:GanzKnusper|GanzKnusper]] ([[User talk:GanzKnusper|talk]]) 08:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hello, I would like to discuss about the reliability of year-end lists as sources for music genres. For example, in the page [[Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse]] [[Contemporary R&B|R&B]] is sourced with "20 Best R&B Albums of 2014"[https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/20-best-rb-albums-of-2014-168202/mariah-carey-me-i-am-mariahthe-elusive-chanteuse-227512/]; I previously talked about this with the rollbacker {{user|Ss112}} and he told me that is ok. Nevertheless, {{user|Gutchan}} disagrees and |
|||
:I can't find any evidence that they are still going either, and the fact the website (and its alternative lbmo.com) are dead is not a good sign. They have a Twitter/X account, but I'm not on X so I can't check when their last post was or if they say anything about closing down... the Facebook page hasn't been updated since 2015. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 16:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I'm tired of fighting with him in the page [[Liberation (Christina Aguilera album)]]. Should I use these lists as sources? [[User:Blueberry72|Blueberry72]] ([[User talk:Blueberry72|talk]]) 15:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Good idea, I didn't look on social media. As far as I can tell the most recent post on their Twitter/X account is from 13 November 2015, same as Facebook. [[User:GanzKnusper|GanzKnusper]] ([[User talk:GanzKnusper|talk]]) 18:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Seems pretty clear to me. Source lists off their top R&B albums. Album is in the list. I don’t see any other interpretation possible other than that the publication considers it to be an R&B album. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: |
:All right, I'll add this info to [[WP:RSMUSIC|RSMUSIC]]. [[User:GanzKnusper|GanzKnusper]] ([[User talk:GanzKnusper|talk]]) 17:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::This is very straight-forward: cited information from a reliable source on this topic and it's not at all controversial to say that Mariah Carey sings R&B. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 16:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::So, if I add pop in the page [[Liberation (Christina Aguilera album)]] and I use this source[https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/best-pop-albums-2018-ariana-grande-768311/christina-aguilera-liberation-768340/] I suppose I'm not making a mistake [[User:Blueberry72|Blueberry72]] ([[User talk:Blueberry72|talk]]) 16:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{Ping|Blueberry72}} Certainly not. See [[WP:BLUE]] and [[WP:SOURCE]]: we should have sources for things that aren't common knowledge or uncontroversial facts. Christina Aguilera is pretty well known as a pop star, so a source like the one you provided is good for saying that an individual album was on a certain list or a particular recording was pop but generally speaking, it's totally fine to say that she performs pop or [[Michael Jordan]] played basketball without having to cite that in every instance. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 16:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Yet, when I used such a chart to make such a claim, it's not valid. How do you reconcile those discrepancies? [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 16:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{Ping|Walter Görlitz}} ? ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 16:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: In a recent discussion, there was some disagreement as to whether charting in a specific genre was sufficient for claiming that genre in the article let alone the infobox. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 17:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::{{Ping|Walter Görlitz}} Well, I can't comment on why there is some inconsistency without knowing more details but I'll make blind guesses... Maybe the one chart categorized someone's work as a genre that no other source does so is spurious? ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: Possibly. But then shouldn't we apply that same standard to t hie year-end list? [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 17:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::{{Ping|Walter Görlitz}} I can't understand your point. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 18:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Maybe we should consider that year-end lists are written by music critics, charts aren't [[User:Blueberry72|Blueberry72]] ([[User talk:Blueberry72|talk]]) 18:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
: Blueberry72 makes a good point. We have to look at who is making the list. If one reviewer states that an album is the best in a particular genre, but no other sources support that the work is of that genre, it's [[:WP:OR]] by that reviewer, whether or not it's peer reviewed or subject to editorial review. In this case, ''Rolling Stone'' has rigorous standards that many of such lists (such as [https://loudwire.com/top-50-nu-metal-albums-of-all-time/] or [https://www.revolvermag.com/music/20-essential-nu-metal-albums]) may not have. My point was that where a work charts is determined by the label and others. So an album may be a crossover success and may not be representative of the genre. However, when a work only charts in one location, I argued that it should be considered as a RS to support that genre. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 19:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm still not sure if a chart can be considered a reliable source for musical genres; anyway, it seems that we are all in agreement that year-end lists can support a musical genre [[User:Blueberry72|Blueberry72]] ([[User talk:Blueberry72|talk]]) 14:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: No. The merits of the compiler of the year-end list must be taken into account. A blogging website with an uncredentialed author that comes up with the best East Coast hip hop albums of the year is not a RS. However, yes, a ''Rolling Stone'' list on a specific genre can be considered a RS. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 15:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I take for granted that a blog is never a reliable source [[User:Blueberry72|Blueberry72]] ([[User talk:Blueberry72|talk]]) 15:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::: But then again, a blog written by a noted music critic is a reliable source. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 15:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: You right, in that case I think there aren't problems of reliability [[User:Blueberry72|Blueberry72]] ([[User talk:Blueberry72|talk]]) 15:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Grammys list on [[List of awards and nominations received by Red Hot Chili Peppers]] is wrong == |
|||
== A new newsletter directory is out! == |
|||
According to the [https://www.grammy.com/artists/red-hot-chili-peppers/16367 official Grammys page], the list on this Wikipedia page is very wrong. I'd fix it myself but tangling with tables is one of my least favorite Wikipedia tasks. Would anyone care to take a look? [[User:Popcornfud|Popcornfud]] ([[User talk:Popcornfud|talk]]) 15:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
A new '''[[Template:Newsletters|Newsletter directory]]''' has been created to replace the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_newsletters&oldid=891896284 old, out-of-date one]. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like [https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page WikiSpecies]), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the [[Template talk:Newsletters|template's talk page]] and someone will add it for you. |
|||
:– Sent on behalf of [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]]. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:DannyS712@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Headbomb/Newsletter&oldid=891933551 --> |
|||
:<s>Looks like a lot of these were added last year by the editor JasonH1978. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 15:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)</s> |
|||
== YouTube references (and others like it) used improperly == |
|||
:Scratch that, it looks like it was an IP last month - my apologies to Jason for the false accusation. So a simple revert to the version before the IP's edits should do it. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 15:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks to @[[User:Zmbro|Zmbro]] for reverting that. But I don't think it's the whole story. The page now says they won 6 Grammys, but they've only won 3. [[User:Popcornfud|Popcornfud]] ([[User talk:Popcornfud|talk]]) 01:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Is the ''[[Afropop Worldwide]]'' website a reliable source for album reviews? == |
|||
While fighting vandalism using Huggle, I saw an IP editor add YouTube as a reference for the YouTube video, violating our basic [[WP:RS]] rules. I found this was just one of many instances, which I deleted, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunday_Morning_(Maroon_5_song)&diff=next&oldid=875433753&diffmode=source]. Unfortunately, it takes little time before the IP's add the stuff back in with no sources or the same sources, and the same language, that sounds it was written by a media professional [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunday_Morning_(Maroon_5_song)&type=revision&diff=877795232&oldid=877239357&diffmode=source]. I think they are using Wikipedia as promotional advertising click bait, and there is big money it making sure the wikipedia article makes it easy to find and click on the video as a "reference" and those who are adding it care not a shred if this violates our sourcing rules. |
|||
<p>I saw {{u|Koavf}} delete similar advertising that I had called into question [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Silverman&type=revision&diff=885163138&oldid=884002618&diffmode=source], asked him about my concerns [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koavf#YouTube_videos_as_citations_for_music_videos here], and he suggested I come here to discuss any problems. |
|||
<p>I have some questions, which I might add here. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Many of the reviews on the website are credited to [[Banning Eyre]], a published musicologist. He's also on the [https://afropop.org/team team page of their website]. He owns a [https://www.banningeyre.com/new-lionsongsrecords record label], but as far as I can tell it is very minor and none of his reviews are for its releases. |
|||
== FA nomination for Almost There == |
|||
Besides Eyre, the most regular reviewer is [https://afropop.org/team/mukwae-wabei-siyolwe Mukwae Wabei Siyolwe], who doesn't seem to have written for other notable music publications. |
|||
I think it would be valuable to include ''Afropop Worldwide'' in the list of reliable sources at [[WP:RSMUSIC]], but specifying that only Eyre's reviews are to be used. I'll wait for input from other editors here before making any change. [[User:GanzKnusper|GanzKnusper]] ([[User talk:GanzKnusper|talk]]) 22:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[Almost There (album)]] article is up for [[WP:Featured article|featured article]] status. As a significant (mid-importance) article in this WikiProject, any and all project members are invited to comment on or review [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almost There (album)/archive1|the nomination]] and help see if it fits the [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria|featured article criteria]]. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 22:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Eyre is a great writer and he may be a subject matter expert. I know I've cited his book with Barlow as well as his other ones, and I think he contributes to NPR. The actual site could give a little more info on their editorial policies, etc., though. [[User:Caro7200|Caro7200]] ([[User talk:Caro7200|talk]]) 23:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Reliable vs. Unreliable sources == |
|||
::Right, in fact ''Afropop Worldwide'' seems to be affiliated with NPR: https://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444269/pri-afropop-worldwide [[User:GanzKnusper|GanzKnusper]] ([[User talk:GanzKnusper|talk]]) 08:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:To conclude: I won't add ''Afropop Worldwide'' to the reliable sources list, because they don't have a clear editorial policy. But Banning Eyre's reviews and coverage are OK to use, because of his subject matter expertise, à la [[David Katz (author)|David Katz]]. [[User:GanzKnusper|GanzKnusper]] ([[User talk:GanzKnusper|talk]]) 07:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Canadian Music Recording Certifications before 1975 == |
|||
Differentiating reliable vs. unreliable sources in music articles is not entirely straightforward. |
|||
If I wanted to determine whether [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meek_Mill_discography&oldid=892324175#cite_note-53 this reference] is appropriate, what should I do? I do know that I should look in [[WP:ALBUM/SOURCES]]. [https://musiccanada.com https://musiccanada.com] is not listed. In the past, I have taken this to [[WP:RS/N]]. Seems like it might be easier to discuss music sources here. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
According to the [[Music Canada]] website... |
|||
''Music Canada’s Gold/Platinum Certification Program was launched in 1975 to celebrate milestone sales of music in Canada.'' |
|||
Only thing is, that is total bs. |
|||
Just a '''very small''' selection.[https://www.worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Business/Music/Archive-Cash-Box-IDX/60s/1968/CB-1968-02-10-OCR-Page-0073.pdf#search=%22humperdinck%20gold%22], [https://www.worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Business/Music/Archive-Cash-Box-IDX/60s/1969/CB-1969-11-15-OCR-Page-0063.pdf#search=%22blind%20faith%20gold%20leaf%22], [https://www.worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Business/Music/Archive-Cash-Box-IDX/70s/1974/CB-1974-09-28-OCR-Page-0051.pdf#search=%22canadian%20gold%22], [https://www.worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Business/Music/Archive-Cash-Box-IDX/70s/1974/CB-1974-04-06-OCR-Page-0034.pdf#search=%22canadian%20gold%22], |
|||
[https://www.worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Business/Music/Archive-Cash-Box-IDX/70s/1970/CB-1970-09-26-OCR-Page-0049.pdf#search=%22canadian%20gold%22], [https://www.worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Business/Music/Archive-Cash-Box-IDX/70s/1972/Cash-Box-1972-02-19-OCR-Page-0041.pdf#search=%22canadian%20gold%22], [https://www.worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Business/Music/Archive-Cash-Box-IDX/70s/1973/Cash-Box-1973-11-10-OCR-Page-0054.pdf#search=%22canadian%20gold%22] etc. etc. |
|||
: Conclusion... At least as early as '''1968'''(and possible years earlier too) a ''Single''' that sold '''100,000''' copies in Canada was '''Gold'''. And '''Album''' that sold '''50,000''' copies in Canada was '''Gold'''. From at least as early as '''1973'''(and possibly earlier) and '''Album''' that sold '''100,000''' copies in Canada was '''Platinum'''. Music Canada does not recognise this at all. But then Music Canada doesn't even recognise Music Canada's own 1975/1976 certifications! [ http://www.americanradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Business/Music/Archive-Cash-Box-IDX/70s/1976/Cash-Box-1976-10-09-OCR-Page-0015.pdf#search=%22iron%20butterfly%20j%20geils%20band%20platinum%22] |
|||
Wiki should include ALL these **1968**(possible earlier) through 1975 Canadian Certifications. Sadly, there is no central database. It would require going issue-by-issue through old copies of eg. [[Billboard]], [[Cash Box]] etc. But it is preposterous to not recognise that eg. [[Jimi Hendrix]], [[Cat Stevens]] etc. releases never received Canadian Gold Certifications...when they did! [[Special:Contributions/197.87.135.139|197.87.135.139]] ([[User talk:197.87.135.139|talk]]) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I have no problem explaining this as long as we've got the reliable sources and proper context in the prose written for it. It could be a pretty tall order to find someone to manually dig through magazines for the actual certifications though. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 01:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== The YE Rankings Consensus == |
|||
I am starting a discourse on the current consensus set by [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 64#Overly long ranking lists]]. The reasons for why I am doing this are extensive and would require reacting to every comment made by several participating editors in that discourse, but just so you all have a basic idea... |
|||
*its basis in any guidelines or policy is lackluster, with the only cited page being an incorrect usage of [[WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE]], |
|||
*it calls the cited example abstract names that are confusing to apply to what are simple tables with text and a gray background |
|||
*it falsely equates ratings in reviews (which could range from extremely favorable, to lukewarm, to mixed, to unfavorable and should not have a limit for [[Template:Album reviews|its template]] on a note for possibly another discourse) to statements of what was the top 100, 50 and 10 of a set of hundreds of thousands of albums (pretty much the top 1%), indicating poor judgement |
|||
*its claims about the quality and editorial standards of the year-end lists in question is unsubstantiated and extremely speculative, and would be far from enough in a discussion about the reliability of a source |
|||
*it attempts to push a [[WP:NPOV|point of view]] over what perspectives of professional music journalists are "noteworthy" and what are not |
|||
*it makes the false statement that sources need to be covered in other sources to be worthy of inclusion, which is ridiculous anyway and would cause the article count of this site to be 0 if applied universally |
|||
*And finally and most importantly, it opens the door to giving [[WP:UNDUE]] weight to only 10 publications in cases where there are several more claiming the album to be a numberth-best [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 21:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*'''Opposed''' to loosening it up - we're an encyclopedia, not a reviews or awards aggregator compelled to document every approved website. INDISCRIMINATE was created for this sort of mindset. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 21:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*:It would really help if you did not make loaded statements. Nobody thought this website was an aggregator before we had this limit, and it objectively was not. This is still going to be an encyclopedia regardless if this limit is here or not. [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 22:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*'''Support''' 10 is far too few and as you pointed out, will require some totally arbitrary decision criteria where editors all in some otherwise reliable sources and omit others. If an outlet is on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources]], it's valid to include it in these kinds of listings. This could visually or page-layoutwise only be a problem after a couple dozen and 99.9% of albums would never be on that many lists anyway. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 21:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*Per [[WP:NOTEVERYTHING]]: "An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Listing every best-of ranking is not a summary. A summary is not arbitrary. Limit of 10 aligns with longstanding practice at the album reviews template. Having no limit on the template is even more comical. [[User:Heartfox|Heartfox]] ([[User talk:Heartfox|talk]]) 22:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*:We are not talking about {{tl|music ratings}}. You seem confused. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 22:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: It's referred to in the opening statement. [[User:Heartfox|Heartfox]] ([[User talk:Heartfox|talk]]) 22:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I made a side comment about the ratings template because the consensus compared year-end lists to ratings. That's what Heartfox is referring. [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 22:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|Heartfox}} {{ping|Sergecross73}} This is exactly the misinterpretation of the [[WP:NOT]] page that I briefly referred to in my first bullet point. Yes, there is a lot of details we do not put in for a variety of reasons. we do not summarize every single level and button command in a video game. We do not cover every cheat code or glitch. We do not bring up every small thing that happens in a film, book or TV episode when summarizing the plot. We do not have every definition in the dictionary on here. And we do not present every statistic and number that has ever been tracked by government and website logs. I have much time behind me editing this site and am very aware of that. |
|||
:::Here's the real question: How does this violate WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE? The most appropriate bullet point to this discourse is "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", but ignoring the obvious that this is specifically for [[WP:Primary source]] statistics (and these are viewpoints from independent sources we are talking about here), this does not prohibit having the tables or coming up with a universally-applied bar of a number of rows. It does acknowledge that these tables can be sometimes "so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article" but recommends "to split into a separate article" and have a brief description of it in the main article. [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 23:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Please take a long hard read revisiting [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of accolades received by Folklore|this discussion again]]. The community is largely and strongly against your approach. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 23:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Serge, can you please engage with the comment I just made instead of repeatedly linking me to a random AFD that took place six months ago and contains all of the same arguments as in the consensus I am disputing here? A small portion of users in a AFD from a specific seven-day time period is not "the community". [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 23:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::10+ AFD participants rejected your notion. Zero supported it. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 23:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::10 out of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|10,000 active contributors]]. Literally six months ago. 3 participants did not give any rationale. 3 I had heavy back-and-forths with, the rest I could not respond to because I was blocked for an unrelated incident. All gave rationales that were invalid. You are not arguing anything. [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 00:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Opposed''': 10 is plenty, and there's a history of consensus beyond that as a hard limit on multiple areas of album articles. [[User:QuietHere|QuietHere]] ([[User talk:QuietHere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/QuietHere|contributions]]) 22:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you for your input, but I am expecting more from opposing commenters. Do you have something better than "It's just consensus" and other aspects of articles have this? [[WP:Consensus can change|Consensus can change and be contestable]]. [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 22:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I mean, sure, but the reasons we developed that consensus in the first place are still valid. Have you looked back at the old versions of some of those articles with dozens of lists? It was absurd. I think having a hard limit is entirely self-explanatory, and I stand by it. What more is there to be said than that? Serge put it as well as it could be put already anyway. [[User:QuietHere|QuietHere]] ([[User talk:QuietHere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/QuietHere|contributions]]) 22:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::The whole reason I am starting this section is because none of their reasons were "valid" by any stretch of the imagination, and you are telling me to just accept what are you saying on blind faith. What's "Self-explanatory"? "Absurd" based on what? The lists are massive, but that is simply because lots of reputable publications considered the LPs one of the best of their respective years, so thus the size of the table reflect that. All of the publications meet [[WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources]]. And no, there is no evidence any of the listed publications or "self sourced" or created under a low-quality "clickbait" method as JG66 kneejerkedly presumed. |
|||
::::[[Wikipedia:Five pillars|There is no pillar on this website]] to write in such a manner that appeals to the masses' instant gratification, ignoring the fact that no one is putting a gun to anyone's head to read the entire articles, and can organize the table however they like and use the "Find in Page" feature to look for the year-end ranking, or can just read the in-prose summary of the year-end lists without having to read the table. [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 23:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Release date inconsistency == |
|||
I'll use [[Back in Business (EPMD album)]] as an example, but I'd like to get a generalized advice I could apply elsewhere later. A few years ago I changed unsourced release date of September 23 to sourced September 16. Now an editor comes in and changes it back to September 23. I reverted them, but they restored it, claiming that the official artist page on Instagram says it's September 23. I checked and it indeed does say so. However, the first release date source currently in the article is [https://xxlmag.s3.amazonaws.com/pdfs/defjam-moment.pdf a magazine article from 2009] with compiled data received directly from the label, including release dates. The other sources are a contemporary newspaper and an article from 2008. The dates are important here because [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=213.231.161.132&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=2011-12-25&end=2012-12-31&limit=500 in 2012 an IP editor mass changed release dates] in numerous articles, [[Special:Diff/508003865|including this one]]. I can't say whether or not it's a case of [[citogenesis]], but now we have several pre-2012 sources saying September 16 (here are a few more contemporary ones [https://books.google.com/books?id=3QkEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA62&dq=%22epmd%22%20%22back%20in%20business%22%20%22sept.%2016%22&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q=%22epmd%22%20%22back%20in%20business%22%20%22sept.%2016%22&f=false] [https://www.mtv.com/news/qxesr6/r-n-r-three-dot-fugees-set-record-straight]; I can't seem to find contemporary sources for September 23 but some newspapers ads do mention that date) and modern day official Instagram of the duo, with whoever running it claiming it's September 23. Who should get the priority here? <span style="background:#16171c; font-family:monospace; font-weight:600; padding:5px; box-shadow:#9b12f0 2px -2px">[[User:AstonishingTunesAdmirer|<span style="color:#ff29f8">AstonishingTunesAdmirer</span>]] [[User talk:AstonishingTunesAdmirer|連絡]]</span> 04:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I would favour the contemporary, not-self-published source. But could there be something else going on, like release dates in different countries? I'd guess it's not a coincidence that the suggested dates are exactly 1 week apart. In the ''XXL'' article you linked, the release date of Ja Rule's ''[[Rule 3:36]]'' is also one week out from what the Wiki article (sourced to AllMusic) claims. And AllMusic has totally different months for ''[[Whatcha Gonna Do? (Jayo Felony album)|Whatcha Gonna Do?]]'' and ''[[He Got Game (soundtrack)|He Got Game]]''. [[User:GanzKnusper|GanzKnusper]] ([[User talk:GanzKnusper|talk]]) 07:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::To put things honestly, I like to remind you that the Sep 23 date was from the <u>official</u> social media page for the group, possibly verified as an official page by independent sources, not just any self-published source like you are framing it. To get back to the main focus of the section, I have encountered these situations so much and it drives me crazy in 1980s and 1970s albums, when the only sources for release dates were magazine and newspaper listings and PR. [[User:HumanxAnthro]] ([[User talk:HumanxAnthro|<span style="color:Brown">Banjo</span>x<span style="color:Red">Kazooie</span>]]) 13:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I always go with the contemporary source. Modern–day sources often don't have the actual data to hand, and in fact a lot of them get their information from Wikipedia, which creates a [[WP:CIRCULAR]] sourcing argument. The people running websites and social media will upload whatever information they are told to upload, they are not fact-checking the dates. More than once I've found a band's official website give completely the wrong release date, so I never consider an official website or social media as reliable. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 14:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|GanzKnusper}} regarding the fact that the dates are one week apart; both dates are Tuesdays, [[Global Release Day|pre-2015 release day in the US]]. If it was a release date from a different country, it wouldn't necessarily be on Tuesday. I've actually encountered an even crazier case, [[Talk:Kings of Crunk#Release date|where I found sources for 3 different Tuesdays]]. As for these other examples, they all have something in common: if you check revisions from around 2010, they listed different release dates. AllMusic provides the release date in its sidebar, which is to be avoided per [[WP:A/S]]. Sourcing release dates for older albums is the worst, especially after all these unsourced changes stayed up for a decade. <span style="background:#16171c; font-family:monospace; font-weight:600; padding:5px; box-shadow:#9b12f0 2px -2px">[[User:AstonishingTunesAdmirer|<span style="color:#ff29f8">AstonishingTunesAdmirer</span>]] [[User talk:AstonishingTunesAdmirer|連絡]]</span> 15:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Agreed – hstorically, release dates were always on Tuesdays in the US, but if the release date was from Europe, it would have been on a Monday... UK release dates for both singles and albums were on Mondays from around 1984–85 until Global Release Day in 2015 changed it to Fridays all around the world. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 16:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{xt|More than once I've found a band's official website give completely the wrong release date, so I never consider an official website or social media as reliable.}} That makes me think of how Bowie's website unearthed "new evidence" from [[RCA Records]] that stated ''[[The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars]]'' came out on June 16, 1972 and not June 6 (as was '''widely''' reported for decades before). (June 16 is currently in the infobox and body). To me crap like that makes no sense and only adds more confusion. – '''[[User:Zmbro|zmbro]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Zmbro|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Zmbro|cont]])</sub> 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Record labels are also hopeless at knowing the release dates of their own records from before the internet era. One of the worst examples is Island Records telling everyone for decades that Nick Drake's ''Bryter Layter'' came out on 1 November 1970, to the point that two biographies and Island's own deluxe reissue of the album quote this date. We now know that Island got not only the day wrong, not just the month wrong, but even the year wrong... it was 5 March 1971. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 18:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Don't get me started on streaming services on releases prior to the streaming era either. Countless times they can't even get the years right. It kills me when I'm trying to organize/clean up an obscure band's discography... [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 00:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:44, 21 June 2024
Albums Project‑class | |||||||
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Good article reassessment for Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One
Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One has been nominated for a 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. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Apple Music's list
Is the recently top 100 albums from Apple Music allowed to be referenced in the pages of albums that made the list? Cahlin29 (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm gonna say no in so far as we don't consider Apple Music a reliable publication, but I know others which we do consider reliable have covered at least part of the list so those may be okay. Given how much of the list consists of all-time popular/acclaimed albums though, I'm not sure there's much point in including it since those articles probably already have a dozen other lists each saying the same thing. It's a drop in the bucket. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, that's fair, thanks for taking the time to respond. Cahlin29 (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's an interesting list though, I can imagine that it's caused a lot of debate seeing how it's left out so many of the acknowledged "classics". As a Brit, I find the inclusion of Sade in this list and the Rolling Stone 500 albums fascinating... the Americans seem to love her, but in her native UK her albums have been all but forgotten since the 1990s. Richard3120 (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Although I see now that an editor has started adding the list to those albums anyway... Richard3120 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's an interesting list though, I can imagine that it's caused a lot of debate seeing how it's left out so many of the acknowledged "classics". As a Brit, I find the inclusion of Sade in this list and the Rolling Stone 500 albums fascinating... the Americans seem to love her, but in her native UK her albums have been all but forgotten since the 1990s. Richard3120 (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, that's fair, thanks for taking the time to respond. Cahlin29 (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Album title that can't be typed
So the article on Patrick Moraz's first solo album is located at The Story of I, but for those of you who don't know, "The Story of I" is not the actual title of the album. In fact, while it is unquestionably the album's WP:COMMONNAME, the phrase "The Story of I" doesn't appear anywhere on the album or its original packaging, so I can only guess how anyone came up with it. The reason why people don't use the real title is more obvious: it's an unpronounceable symbol which doesn't appear on any conventional keyboard.
While the article's name is fine as it is (again, WP:COMMONNAME), it seems like the real title of the album should at least be mentioned in the article, but though I've seen articles use such non-standard symbols, I don't know how one goes about adding them. Can anyone help me here? (Also, if by chance someone has handy sourced info about how and why "The Story of I" became the generally understood title for the album, that would be terrific.) Martin IIIa (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I know loosely if what you're talking about, but I'm afraid I don't know how to do it with a keyboard either. Is it used anywhere online in reviews or discogs text or anything? Sometimes even if you can't type it, you can copy/paste it (depending on what it is.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- The only site I've ever run across which uses the symbol does so through an embedded image. Is there a way to add an image to a Wikipedia article such that it appears as part of the prose (rather than breaking up the paragraph the way a normal thumbnail image would)? Martin IIIa (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is pretty much a Love Symbol case. File:Prince logo.svg was determined to be exclusively used on Prince (musician)'s page as at some point he used it as an alternative name. His biography's running text has an example on how the image can be used as part of the prose. Keep in mind that this logo is likely to be copyrighted (despite its simplicity) and that The Story of I has too many copyrighted files already. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'd been planning to remove the images of the inner gatefold and inner sleeve anyway since they don't seem to serve any function in the article; would that help with the copyright issue? It does seem like adding the album's title couldn't make the copyright issue any worse, since a rendering of it already appears in the images of the inner sleeve and front cover. Martin IIIa (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note that I already marked them for deletion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'd been planning to remove the images of the inner gatefold and inner sleeve anyway since they don't seem to serve any function in the article; would that help with the copyright issue? It does seem like adding the album's title couldn't make the copyright issue any worse, since a rendering of it already appears in the images of the inner sleeve and front cover. Martin IIIa (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is pretty much a Love Symbol case. File:Prince logo.svg was determined to be exclusively used on Prince (musician)'s page as at some point he used it as an alternative name. His biography's running text has an example on how the image can be used as part of the prose. Keep in mind that this logo is likely to be copyrighted (despite its simplicity) and that The Story of I has too many copyrighted files already. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- The only site I've ever run across which uses the symbol does so through an embedded image. Is there a way to add an image to a Wikipedia article such that it appears as part of the prose (rather than breaking up the paragraph the way a normal thumbnail image would)? Martin IIIa (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Re-recorded albums
I wanted to write stuff on a re-recorded album on my favourite band Coldrain who have just released a re-recorded Final Destination for its fifteenth anniversary. I wasn't sure if I was meant to add it to the original article or make it its article, per what's been done with Taylor Swift's re-releases. But I figured that was down to because there was so much information available on those re-recordings or whatnot. What is the general consensus for bands who do re-recordings of their albums? Make it their own article or just add it to the original article? A bit puzzled on what to do, and I can't find any information on this either so figured this is what I should have done by asking this question here, so sorry if it's not in the appropriate place. I would greatly appreciate a response, thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- The current article is pretty much a stub with a tracklist, so I'd just add it there. There's no need for a separate article when the current one is so bare bones. Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- To add on to that, re-recorded albums (1989 (Taylor's Version), Red (Taylor's Version)) and reissue albums (The Fame Monster and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded) are only notable in their own rites if they have significant enough coverage. As Sergecross said, the Coldrain album is basically a stub/start class article so you can just add the re-recording to the same page. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Album of the Year
Would Album of the Year (AOTY) be reliable as a critic aggregator? The website clearly separates professional critic reviews from user reviews. — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- This has been discussed before and was agreed to not be good as a direct source, since they have no editorial standards. It is very useful for finding reliable sources to add here (note that not all sources they use are considered reliable) and should be added to d:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's already listed on WP:NOTRSMUSIC, along with a link to the discussion that got it listed there. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Too Many Humans.....#Requested move 17 May 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Too Many Humans.....#Requested move 17 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Tradfolk
Is this source acceptable as a WP:RS for album reviews? Here's a recent example. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Leaning no. One of the best ways to tell the reliability of a publication is by seeing that their writers also feature in other reliable pubs, thus establishing them as subject-matter experts. In this case, I could find that, per this site's author bios, Gavin McNamara has written for the Big Issue and Metal Hammer and editor Jon Wilks (bio) has written for a handful of reliables. Past that, I didn't see anything of the sort. It may help that Wilks is himself (maybe) notable enough for his own article, at least for his music career, but its hitting at a bare minimum level that is too close for comfort for me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Related to this discussion--what's the best practice for an article like Ship to Shore? All the ratings are shoved in the prose, instead of using the ratings template, which seems like the worst of all options as it leads to a clunky and ugly section (in my opinion). I think the template is useful, but I've also declined to add it a few times, and just didn't mention ratings at all. Is this regarded as a personal, status quo editorial choice? Does the community have a policy if an editor chooses to add a template (I don't plan on it, but it seems inevitable)? Cheers to Justin and Martin (and the great Richard Thompson), just thought it was best to start here... Caro7200 (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps best to have a discussion Talk:Ship to Shore (Richard Thompson album)? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I think it's an issue that pertains to the entire project. This seems to be a relatively new trend (albeit a rarely used one): editors wanting to mention many ratings in prose rather than starting with a ratings template. I don't think it's a helpful choice, but my guess is that it isn't wrong for, in this case, Justin, to decline to use one, just as it isn't against policy for another editor to decide eventually to shift up to 10 ratings to an added template. Caro7200 (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sure it's a good idea to discuss that. Somewhere I just wanted a discussion and consensus view on Tradfolk. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Caro7200 this page is a good venue for this discussion, but it's off-topic regarding the query Martin came in with and should've been given its own section, which you could always do now and just link back here for context. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I think it's an issue that pertains to the entire project. This seems to be a relatively new trend (albeit a rarely used one): editors wanting to mention many ratings in prose rather than starting with a ratings template. I don't think it's a helpful choice, but my guess is that it isn't wrong for, in this case, Justin, to decline to use one, just as it isn't against policy for another editor to decide eventually to shift up to 10 ratings to an added template. Caro7200 (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Il Mare Calmo della Sera#Requested move 27 May 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Il Mare Calmo della Sera#Requested move 27 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
To address issues with this article's length, I have opened a discussion at Talk:Illmatic#Split proposal that may be of interest to this WikiProject. — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
ratings template v. use in prose
As, uh, mentioned only slightly above this thread:
What's the best practice for an article like Ship to Shore? All the ratings are shoved in the prose, instead of using the ratings template, which seems like the worst of all options as it leads to a clunky and ugly section (in my opinion). I think the template is useful, but I've also declined to add it a few times, and just didn't mention ratings at all. Is this regarded as a personal, status quo editorial choice? Does the community have a policy if an editor chooses to add a template (I don't plan on it, but it seems inevitable)? Cheers to Justin and Martin (and the great Richard Thompson), just thought it was best to start here...
I think it's an issue that pertains to the entire project. This seems to be a relatively new trend (albeit a rarely used one): editors wanting to mention many ratings in prose rather than starting with a ratings template. I don't think it's a helpful choice, but my guess is that it isn't wrong for, in this case, Justin, to decline to use one, just as it isn't against policy for another editor to decide eventually to shift up to 10 ratings to an added template. Caro7200 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that listing scores in prose is discouraged, but I can't seem to find any mentions of it right now. That's certainly how the vast majority of featured articles about albums is written, and FAs are our best articles and examples of how articles should be written. The use of the template is not a requirement, though. As for this specific article, personally, I wouldn't put the template in the current version. On my 1080p screen the infobox already pushed the quote box into track listing section. And I agree with you that in general it's a bad choice and score-filled prose looks clunky. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 16:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- As AstonishingTunesAdmirer said, it's not a requirement (and I doubt we could justifiably make it one), but personally I do find it overcrowds the prose and can make the section difficult to read with all the ratings included there. The express purpose of this template is to reduce this kind of crowding by placing the information in a convenient, off-to-the-side place, and I much prefer having it that way. I don't really see the point in not using it. I'm also not sure I know many editors who don't; I know Koavf never does (a comment as to why would be appreciated and valuable to this discussion), but he's the only one I know of who consistently does so. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I used to add it, but now I much prefer a {{quote-box}} that I think is much more interesting and gives useful context instead of {{music ratings}} which discourages reading the reception section. See To All Trains, for instance, where I think that the quote box there is fun and elucidates something about the album release. And if you add both a quote-box and music ratings, it generally pushes these divs way down into the body of the article. It's just not necessary and generally encourages the wrong kind of behavior, which is not really reading the article. If you really want to know how many stars [outlet] gave an album, I always put what the ratings are in the body of the text, so someone can press Ctrl+f and find that specific score. Does that make any sense? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Makes perfect sense to me and is pretty much exactly what I was expecting you to say. Personally, I find the quote-box being that small and pushed off to the side discourages me from reading, and would rather something like that be included in its own section, but I get what you mean. Definitely can't have both. I do still think the overcrowding of prose is an issue though. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that the quote boxes on Ship to Shore and To All Trains both have fonts at 85% of normal size, just barely at the lower limit allowed by SMALL. I don't know how strict that line is, but scraping that close to it seems like something that perhaps shouldn't be encouraged. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, I hate sub-100% text in principle and usually cannot read it. I agree that it sucks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- As I hope would be clear to others (but isn't always because I am sometimes not so collaborative), please do amend the boxes as they meet best practice or make more sense to you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that the quote boxes on Ship to Shore and To All Trains both have fonts at 85% of normal size, just barely at the lower limit allowed by SMALL. I don't know how strict that line is, but scraping that close to it seems like something that perhaps shouldn't be encouraged. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Makes perfect sense to me and is pretty much exactly what I was expecting you to say. Personally, I find the quote-box being that small and pushed off to the side discourages me from reading, and would rather something like that be included in its own section, but I get what you mean. Definitely can't have both. I do still think the overcrowding of prose is an issue though. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I used to add it, but now I much prefer a {{quote-box}} that I think is much more interesting and gives useful context instead of {{music ratings}} which discourages reading the reception section. See To All Trains, for instance, where I think that the quote box there is fun and elucidates something about the album release. And if you add both a quote-box and music ratings, it generally pushes these divs way down into the body of the article. It's just not necessary and generally encourages the wrong kind of behavior, which is not really reading the article. If you really want to know how many stars [outlet] gave an album, I always put what the ratings are in the body of the text, so someone can press Ctrl+f and find that specific score. Does that make any sense? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words, Caro and your helpful edits: I have seen you correct errors and generally improve articles that I have written, so I am grateful. I have given my reasoning below, but to be clear, I don't object to adding {{music ratings}} nor do I have any ownership over any articles that I write, so if someone such as yourself thinks it's a really good idea to add it, then I wouldn't stand in the way. I'm just not motivated to add it myself. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, likewise, appreciate the explanation. I believe in editorial freedom; the constant struggle for everyone is aligning that with broad acceptance, best practice, policy conventions, blah blah. And maybe part of the problem for new articles--unless you're Beyonce, Taylor, or the Stones--is that most of the initial info is in regard to critical reception, personnel, chart positions. There's not as much about backstory, inspiration, composition, recording, etc., so that many tend to be lopsided, creating weird spacing issues for weeks or months sometimes. Back in the day, Chicago media, at least, would have run general features on Shellac or Albini, RIP (and he was a producer, although I always admired the coyness...). Tours would have started, so there would have also been live reviews. Critical reception bloat may be inevitable--although Cowboy Carter's is pretty compact, given the size of the entire article. I do think some production grains can be sifted from professional reviews, which is worth doing when starting or expanding an article. Maybe British media will soon publish a few general album rollout features on Thompson... Caro7200 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. I wish there were more I could write on recording, release, and promotion, but on 90%+ of articles, there just won't be. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, likewise, appreciate the explanation. I believe in editorial freedom; the constant struggle for everyone is aligning that with broad acceptance, best practice, policy conventions, blah blah. And maybe part of the problem for new articles--unless you're Beyonce, Taylor, or the Stones--is that most of the initial info is in regard to critical reception, personnel, chart positions. There's not as much about backstory, inspiration, composition, recording, etc., so that many tend to be lopsided, creating weird spacing issues for weeks or months sometimes. Back in the day, Chicago media, at least, would have run general features on Shellac or Albini, RIP (and he was a producer, although I always admired the coyness...). Tours would have started, so there would have also been live reviews. Critical reception bloat may be inevitable--although Cowboy Carter's is pretty compact, given the size of the entire article. I do think some production grains can be sifted from professional reviews, which is worth doing when starting or expanding an article. Maybe British media will soon publish a few general album rollout features on Thompson... Caro7200 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think rating scores in prose is improper. It's best to leave the scores themselves to be visually viewed, then reviews laid out in prose. Although like others have said, there is no rule saying you can't, but personal preference I'd want ratings scores in templates not prose. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Best-of lists
I have added several dozen (hundreds?) of sources to album articles where the critical reception puts it on best of lists. E.g. see the tables at The Greater Wings. I added a number of these today and Ariaslaga removed one as "fluff". If other users think these are inappropriate, I'm not going to keep on adding hundreds to just be removed and waste my time. Do others agree that this shouldn't be added? If others agree with me, then someone please undo this removal. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why can’t you undo it yourself? Are you trying to get people to proxy for you? Ariaslaga (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am under an editing restriction and cannot undo anyone's edits. I am asking the community to see the consensus around this because I don't want to have my work undone hundreds of times over. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. What is the editing restriction for, if you don’t mind my asking? Ariaslaga (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't at all: it's public knowledge. I have engaged in edit-warring, which is inappropriate. Hence, I am seeking to abide by the dispute resolution process, which includes getting a third party to comment, including via WikiProjects. If I am doing something inappropriate now, please let me know. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seriously? Dude, stand up for yourself. It sounds like whoever put that restriction on you was trying to make you humiliate yourself going forward as some kind of a power play. Don’t let them have that. I’ll revert myself on your behalf, it’s not that big of a deal to me. Just please don’t be a beta, you’re better than that. Everyone is better than that. Ariaslaga (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it's nothing like that: my behavior was wrong and the community was valid to sanction me. I appreciate your time and encouragement. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- This is absolutely terrible advice. Don't give unsolicited advice like this. Justin is handling things correctly, and your advice would do nothing but cause trouble. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: I'm not sure they're going to see your message as they were blocked a week ago (a little harshly, to be honest, I don't see any evidence of blatant vandalism in their edits). Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- This (CW mass shooter) looks plenty blatant to me, and paired with this I think the ban was the right move. Found both in this talk page section. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, fair enough... not exactly the vandalism I was referring to, but that commentary certainly seems banworthy. Richard3120 (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- This (CW mass shooter) looks plenty blatant to me, and paired with this I think the ban was the right move. Found both in this talk page section. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: I'm not sure they're going to see your message as they were blocked a week ago (a little harshly, to be honest, I don't see any evidence of blatant vandalism in their edits). Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- This is absolutely terrible advice. Don't give unsolicited advice like this. Justin is handling things correctly, and your advice would do nothing but cause trouble. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it's nothing like that: my behavior was wrong and the community was valid to sanction me. I appreciate your time and encouragement. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seriously? Dude, stand up for yourself. It sounds like whoever put that restriction on you was trying to make you humiliate yourself going forward as some kind of a power play. Don’t let them have that. I’ll revert myself on your behalf, it’s not that big of a deal to me. Just please don’t be a beta, you’re better than that. Everyone is better than that. Ariaslaga (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't at all: it's public knowledge. I have engaged in edit-warring, which is inappropriate. Hence, I am seeking to abide by the dispute resolution process, which includes getting a third party to comment, including via WikiProjects. If I am doing something inappropriate now, please let me know. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. What is the editing restriction for, if you don’t mind my asking? Ariaslaga (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am under an editing restriction and cannot undo anyone's edits. I am asking the community to see the consensus around this because I don't want to have my work undone hundreds of times over. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- With regard to the tables, I believe there is a consensus that there should be a maximum of 10 rows in accordance with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Heartfox (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, in regards to the edit mentioned above, is it appropriate to keep it in the article or to remove it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with year-end ratings, but I feel "so far this year" or "of the first six months of 2024" lists are a bit pointless. I note that Ariaslaga has been indeffed since this thread started. Richard3120 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Richard, using "pointless" as a rationale to remove perspectives from (specifically) reputable, reliable authors of a subject (as determined by this, obviously) is not valid. Everything on this encyclopedia is pointless. Just because you find something "pointless", does not ban it from inclusion here. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty certain Richard's point is that a "best of" list that doesn't even take an entire year into effect, may not show much importance. That's not an uncommon sentiment. I add them occasionally on more obscure song articles that don't have a ton in the way of awards or reception, but it's not really much of an achievement for some superstar to show up "Billboard's Top 50 Hard Rock Albums of 2024 so far (published in April 2024.)" I mean, how many notable rock albums even came out over the course of 4 months? Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Users are to have whatever viewpoints they have on how sources give their perspectives on music, and that's fine. But no sourcing policy is based on whether users like it or not. I do not even care about any of the albums that have been discussed in relation to this topic. If users start removing critics' rankings over not personally finding any of them "important", that's pushing a point of view, and that is not the goal of an encyclopedia. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Again, incorrect. We are not robots working off of a computer program. We are humans capable of editorial discretion. These sorts of decisions are made all the time. Just because an RS published content does not make it compulsory for inclusion. RS coverage is the bare minimum for inclusion, not a requirement. Please don't start this up again, your stance on this was thoroughly rejected last time. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Serge, Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, textbook magazine or newspaper, and neither is this Simple English Wikipedia. This is regular English Wikipedia which expects more sophistication from its readers and is about anything. Whether the human species are able to have editorial discretion in the manner you are talking is irrelative to how much Wikipedia permits with its content.
- Also, when it comes to that "rejection", you are talking about an AFD that took place six months that a small fraction of the users on this website participated in. We go off of current consensus agreed by all users, not what a random selection of users said in a specific topic page months ago. I had a way more hostile tone of voice and attitude than how I am commenting in this section currently that I am not proud of, which I imagine is the real reason other users were not willing to listen, and I have the right to give another go proper in case anyone has changed their minds. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also, has this WikiProject actually made these decisions besides the YE limit? If so, that is a big problem. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not wasting my time on this again. This is misguided advice no one follows, placed in the middle of a week old unrelated discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Again, incorrect. We are not robots working off of a computer program. We are humans capable of editorial discretion. These sorts of decisions are made all the time. Just because an RS published content does not make it compulsory for inclusion. RS coverage is the bare minimum for inclusion, not a requirement. Please don't start this up again, your stance on this was thoroughly rejected last time. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Users are to have whatever viewpoints they have on how sources give their perspectives on music, and that's fine. But no sourcing policy is based on whether users like it or not. I do not even care about any of the albums that have been discussed in relation to this topic. If users start removing critics' rankings over not personally finding any of them "important", that's pushing a point of view, and that is not the goal of an encyclopedia. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty certain Richard's point is that a "best of" list that doesn't even take an entire year into effect, may not show much importance. That's not an uncommon sentiment. I add them occasionally on more obscure song articles that don't have a ton in the way of awards or reception, but it's not really much of an achievement for some superstar to show up "Billboard's Top 50 Hard Rock Albums of 2024 so far (published in April 2024.)" I mean, how many notable rock albums even came out over the course of 4 months? Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Richard, using "pointless" as a rationale to remove perspectives from (specifically) reputable, reliable authors of a subject (as determined by this, obviously) is not valid. Everything on this encyclopedia is pointless. Just because you find something "pointless", does not ban it from inclusion here. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with year-end ratings, but I feel "so far this year" or "of the first six months of 2024" lists are a bit pointless. I note that Ariaslaga has been indeffed since this thread started. Richard3120 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am going to start another section on this page against the 10-row limit, but this is a fact: WP:INDISCRIMINATE absolutely does not apply to rankings of what the best of thousands of records in specific time periods were from journalists writing for publications of strong editorial standards, as the examples provided are obviously WP:Primary sources, such as opinion polls, user ratings on sites like AOTY or IMDb, or crime numbers published by police departments. Best-of lists from sources like NME and Under the Radar are not primary. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- We've been through this before. It's not compulsory to include every single award/review an RS publishes. But yes, you should probably start a new discussion. Have you read this one all the way through? It already wrapped up days ago when the troublesome editor in question was indeffed. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I know what the section is about. It is about an editor who has been indefinitely block for vandalizing a page under the kind of rationale that's currently consensus on WikiProject Albums that I am disputing. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- @HumanxAnthro: a question... what's your view on including both half-yearly and end-of-year rankings for an album? Richard3120 (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am sorry for the delay in response because edit conflicts on this page prevented my comments from getting published, but it is not an opinion but rather the truth. It meets WP:WEIGHT to factor in all reliable sources. regardless if they are year-end lists or half-of-year-end lists. Therefore, it is the correct thing to do. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- This also seems correct to me. In fact, a magazine posting a standard review seems less notable than saying that said album is one of the best of the mid-year. That's a more substantial coverage as far as I'm concerned. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am sorry for the delay in response because edit conflicts on this page prevented my comments from getting published, but it is not an opinion but rather the truth. It meets WP:WEIGHT to factor in all reliable sources. regardless if they are year-end lists or half-of-year-end lists. Therefore, it is the correct thing to do. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- We've been through this before. It's not compulsory to include every single award/review an RS publishes. But yes, you should probably start a new discussion. Have you read this one all the way through? It already wrapped up days ago when the troublesome editor in question was indeffed. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, in regards to the edit mentioned above, is it appropriate to keep it in the article or to remove it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- If there was any ranking that was from an unreliable source or not sourced at all, it's objectively "fluff" or unnecessary. If not, than the editor does not have a valid argument. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
AFD input requested
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beastie Boys Square - discussion is stagnant and needs further input. (While it's not explicitly an album, it is tied to one, as it's related to the cover of the album Paul's Boutique.)
Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
PopMatters rating scale
PopMatters returned to a 10-point scale when they migrated their website to WordPress in January 2021. Here are two archives either side of the change (different albums, but the change in scale is clear): Swamp Dogg 2021-01-16, Swamp Dogg 2021-04-23. GanzKnusper (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- PopMatters' entry on RSMUSIC already notes this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I added it 20 minutes ago. I put this here because I didn't want to stick these urls in the edit summary. GanzKnusper (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Is Latin Beat Magazine defunct?
The website latinbeatmagazine.com has been usurped. The last archive I could find was from October 2021. GanzKnusper (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can't find any evidence that they are still going either, and the fact the website (and its alternative lbmo.com) are dead is not a good sign. They have a Twitter/X account, but I'm not on X so I can't check when their last post was or if they say anything about closing down... the Facebook page hasn't been updated since 2015. Richard3120 (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea, I didn't look on social media. As far as I can tell the most recent post on their Twitter/X account is from 13 November 2015, same as Facebook. GanzKnusper (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- All right, I'll add this info to RSMUSIC. GanzKnusper (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Grammys list on List of awards and nominations received by Red Hot Chili Peppers is wrong
According to the official Grammys page, the list on this Wikipedia page is very wrong. I'd fix it myself but tangling with tables is one of my least favorite Wikipedia tasks. Would anyone care to take a look? Popcornfud (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Looks like a lot of these were added last year by the editor JasonH1978. Richard3120 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)- Scratch that, it looks like it was an IP last month - my apologies to Jason for the false accusation. So a simple revert to the version before the IP's edits should do it. Richard3120 (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks to @Zmbro for reverting that. But I don't think it's the whole story. The page now says they won 6 Grammys, but they've only won 3. Popcornfud (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Is the Afropop Worldwide website a reliable source for album reviews?
Many of the reviews on the website are credited to Banning Eyre, a published musicologist. He's also on the team page of their website. He owns a record label, but as far as I can tell it is very minor and none of his reviews are for its releases. Besides Eyre, the most regular reviewer is Mukwae Wabei Siyolwe, who doesn't seem to have written for other notable music publications.
I think it would be valuable to include Afropop Worldwide in the list of reliable sources at WP:RSMUSIC, but specifying that only Eyre's reviews are to be used. I'll wait for input from other editors here before making any change. GanzKnusper (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Eyre is a great writer and he may be a subject matter expert. I know I've cited his book with Barlow as well as his other ones, and I think he contributes to NPR. The actual site could give a little more info on their editorial policies, etc., though. Caro7200 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Right, in fact Afropop Worldwide seems to be affiliated with NPR: https://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444269/pri-afropop-worldwide GanzKnusper (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- To conclude: I won't add Afropop Worldwide to the reliable sources list, because they don't have a clear editorial policy. But Banning Eyre's reviews and coverage are OK to use, because of his subject matter expertise, à la David Katz. GanzKnusper (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Canadian Music Recording Certifications before 1975
According to the Music Canada website...
Music Canada’s Gold/Platinum Certification Program was launched in 1975 to celebrate milestone sales of music in Canada.
Only thing is, that is total bs.
Just a very small selection.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] etc. etc.
- Conclusion... At least as early as 1968'(and possible years earlier too) a Single that sold 100,000 copies in Canada was Gold. And Album that sold 50,000 copies in Canada was Gold. From at least as early as 1973(and possibly earlier) and Album that sold 100,000 copies in Canada was Platinum. Music Canada does not recognise this at all. But then Music Canada doesn't even recognise Music Canada's own 1975/1976 certifications! [ http://www.americanradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Business/Music/Archive-Cash-Box-IDX/70s/1976/Cash-Box-1976-10-09-OCR-Page-0015.pdf#search=%22iron%20butterfly%20j%20geils%20band%20platinum%22]
Wiki should include ALL these **1968**(possible earlier) through 1975 Canadian Certifications. Sadly, there is no central database. It would require going issue-by-issue through old copies of eg. Billboard, Cash Box etc. But it is preposterous to not recognise that eg. Jimi Hendrix, Cat Stevens etc. releases never received Canadian Gold Certifications...when they did! 197.87.135.139 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have no problem explaining this as long as we've got the reliable sources and proper context in the prose written for it. It could be a pretty tall order to find someone to manually dig through magazines for the actual certifications though. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The YE Rankings Consensus
I am starting a discourse on the current consensus set by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 64#Overly long ranking lists. The reasons for why I am doing this are extensive and would require reacting to every comment made by several participating editors in that discourse, but just so you all have a basic idea...
- its basis in any guidelines or policy is lackluster, with the only cited page being an incorrect usage of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE,
- it calls the cited example abstract names that are confusing to apply to what are simple tables with text and a gray background
- it falsely equates ratings in reviews (which could range from extremely favorable, to lukewarm, to mixed, to unfavorable and should not have a limit for its template on a note for possibly another discourse) to statements of what was the top 100, 50 and 10 of a set of hundreds of thousands of albums (pretty much the top 1%), indicating poor judgement
- its claims about the quality and editorial standards of the year-end lists in question is unsubstantiated and extremely speculative, and would be far from enough in a discussion about the reliability of a source
- it attempts to push a point of view over what perspectives of professional music journalists are "noteworthy" and what are not
- it makes the false statement that sources need to be covered in other sources to be worthy of inclusion, which is ridiculous anyway and would cause the article count of this site to be 0 if applied universally
- And finally and most importantly, it opens the door to giving WP:UNDUE weight to only 10 publications in cases where there are several more claiming the album to be a numberth-best User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opposed to loosening it up - we're an encyclopedia, not a reviews or awards aggregator compelled to document every approved website. INDISCRIMINATE was created for this sort of mindset. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- It would really help if you did not make loaded statements. Nobody thought this website was an aggregator before we had this limit, and it objectively was not. This is still going to be an encyclopedia regardless if this limit is here or not. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support 10 is far too few and as you pointed out, will require some totally arbitrary decision criteria where editors all in some otherwise reliable sources and omit others. If an outlet is on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, it's valid to include it in these kinds of listings. This could visually or page-layoutwise only be a problem after a couple dozen and 99.9% of albums would never be on that many lists anyway. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Listing every best-of ranking is not a summary. A summary is not arbitrary. Limit of 10 aligns with longstanding practice at the album reviews template. Having no limit on the template is even more comical. Heartfox (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- We are not talking about {{music ratings}}. You seem confused. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's referred to in the opening statement. Heartfox (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I made a side comment about the ratings template because the consensus compared year-end lists to ratings. That's what Heartfox is referring. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Heartfox: @Sergecross73: This is exactly the misinterpretation of the WP:NOT page that I briefly referred to in my first bullet point. Yes, there is a lot of details we do not put in for a variety of reasons. we do not summarize every single level and button command in a video game. We do not cover every cheat code or glitch. We do not bring up every small thing that happens in a film, book or TV episode when summarizing the plot. We do not have every definition in the dictionary on here. And we do not present every statistic and number that has ever been tracked by government and website logs. I have much time behind me editing this site and am very aware of that.
- Here's the real question: How does this violate WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE? The most appropriate bullet point to this discourse is "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", but ignoring the obvious that this is specifically for WP:Primary source statistics (and these are viewpoints from independent sources we are talking about here), this does not prohibit having the tables or coming up with a universally-applied bar of a number of rows. It does acknowledge that these tables can be sometimes "so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article" but recommends "to split into a separate article" and have a brief description of it in the main article. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please take a long hard read revisiting this discussion again. The community is largely and strongly against your approach. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Serge, can you please engage with the comment I just made instead of repeatedly linking me to a random AFD that took place six months ago and contains all of the same arguments as in the consensus I am disputing here? A small portion of users in a AFD from a specific seven-day time period is not "the community". User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- 10+ AFD participants rejected your notion. Zero supported it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- 10 out of 10,000 active contributors. Literally six months ago. 3 participants did not give any rationale. 3 I had heavy back-and-forths with, the rest I could not respond to because I was blocked for an unrelated incident. All gave rationales that were invalid. You are not arguing anything. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 00:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- 10+ AFD participants rejected your notion. Zero supported it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Serge, can you please engage with the comment I just made instead of repeatedly linking me to a random AFD that took place six months ago and contains all of the same arguments as in the consensus I am disputing here? A small portion of users in a AFD from a specific seven-day time period is not "the community". User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please take a long hard read revisiting this discussion again. The community is largely and strongly against your approach. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opposed to loosening it up - we're an encyclopedia, not a reviews or awards aggregator compelled to document every approved website. INDISCRIMINATE was created for this sort of mindset. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Opposed: 10 is plenty, and there's a history of consensus beyond that as a hard limit on multiple areas of album articles. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input, but I am expecting more from opposing commenters. Do you have something better than "It's just consensus" and other aspects of articles have this? Consensus can change and be contestable. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, sure, but the reasons we developed that consensus in the first place are still valid. Have you looked back at the old versions of some of those articles with dozens of lists? It was absurd. I think having a hard limit is entirely self-explanatory, and I stand by it. What more is there to be said than that? Serge put it as well as it could be put already anyway. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- The whole reason I am starting this section is because none of their reasons were "valid" by any stretch of the imagination, and you are telling me to just accept what are you saying on blind faith. What's "Self-explanatory"? "Absurd" based on what? The lists are massive, but that is simply because lots of reputable publications considered the LPs one of the best of their respective years, so thus the size of the table reflect that. All of the publications meet WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources. And no, there is no evidence any of the listed publications or "self sourced" or created under a low-quality "clickbait" method as JG66 kneejerkedly presumed.
- There is no pillar on this website to write in such a manner that appeals to the masses' instant gratification, ignoring the fact that no one is putting a gun to anyone's head to read the entire articles, and can organize the table however they like and use the "Find in Page" feature to look for the year-end ranking, or can just read the in-prose summary of the year-end lists without having to read the table. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, sure, but the reasons we developed that consensus in the first place are still valid. Have you looked back at the old versions of some of those articles with dozens of lists? It was absurd. I think having a hard limit is entirely self-explanatory, and I stand by it. What more is there to be said than that? Serge put it as well as it could be put already anyway. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input, but I am expecting more from opposing commenters. Do you have something better than "It's just consensus" and other aspects of articles have this? Consensus can change and be contestable. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Release date inconsistency
I'll use Back in Business (EPMD album) as an example, but I'd like to get a generalized advice I could apply elsewhere later. A few years ago I changed unsourced release date of September 23 to sourced September 16. Now an editor comes in and changes it back to September 23. I reverted them, but they restored it, claiming that the official artist page on Instagram says it's September 23. I checked and it indeed does say so. However, the first release date source currently in the article is a magazine article from 2009 with compiled data received directly from the label, including release dates. The other sources are a contemporary newspaper and an article from 2008. The dates are important here because in 2012 an IP editor mass changed release dates in numerous articles, including this one. I can't say whether or not it's a case of citogenesis, but now we have several pre-2012 sources saying September 16 (here are a few more contemporary ones [8] [9]; I can't seem to find contemporary sources for September 23 but some newspapers ads do mention that date) and modern day official Instagram of the duo, with whoever running it claiming it's September 23. Who should get the priority here? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 04:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would favour the contemporary, not-self-published source. But could there be something else going on, like release dates in different countries? I'd guess it's not a coincidence that the suggested dates are exactly 1 week apart. In the XXL article you linked, the release date of Ja Rule's Rule 3:36 is also one week out from what the Wiki article (sourced to AllMusic) claims. And AllMusic has totally different months for Whatcha Gonna Do? and He Got Game. GanzKnusper (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- To put things honestly, I like to remind you that the Sep 23 date was from the official social media page for the group, possibly verified as an official page by independent sources, not just any self-published source like you are framing it. To get back to the main focus of the section, I have encountered these situations so much and it drives me crazy in 1980s and 1970s albums, when the only sources for release dates were magazine and newspaper listings and PR. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I always go with the contemporary source. Modern–day sources often don't have the actual data to hand, and in fact a lot of them get their information from Wikipedia, which creates a WP:CIRCULAR sourcing argument. The people running websites and social media will upload whatever information they are told to upload, they are not fact-checking the dates. More than once I've found a band's official website give completely the wrong release date, so I never consider an official website or social media as reliable. Richard3120 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- @GanzKnusper: regarding the fact that the dates are one week apart; both dates are Tuesdays, pre-2015 release day in the US. If it was a release date from a different country, it wouldn't necessarily be on Tuesday. I've actually encountered an even crazier case, where I found sources for 3 different Tuesdays. As for these other examples, they all have something in common: if you check revisions from around 2010, they listed different release dates. AllMusic provides the release date in its sidebar, which is to be avoided per WP:A/S. Sourcing release dates for older albums is the worst, especially after all these unsourced changes stayed up for a decade. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 15:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed – hstorically, release dates were always on Tuesdays in the US, but if the release date was from Europe, it would have been on a Monday... UK release dates for both singles and albums were on Mondays from around 1984–85 until Global Release Day in 2015 changed it to Fridays all around the world. Richard3120 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- More than once I've found a band's official website give completely the wrong release date, so I never consider an official website or social media as reliable. That makes me think of how Bowie's website unearthed "new evidence" from RCA Records that stated The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars came out on June 16, 1972 and not June 6 (as was widely reported for decades before). (June 16 is currently in the infobox and body). To me crap like that makes no sense and only adds more confusion. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Record labels are also hopeless at knowing the release dates of their own records from before the internet era. One of the worst examples is Island Records telling everyone for decades that Nick Drake's Bryter Layter came out on 1 November 1970, to the point that two biographies and Island's own deluxe reissue of the album quote this date. We now know that Island got not only the day wrong, not just the month wrong, but even the year wrong... it was 5 March 1971. Richard3120 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Don't get me started on streaming services on releases prior to the streaming era either. Countless times they can't even get the years right. It kills me when I'm trying to organize/clean up an obscure band's discography... Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Record labels are also hopeless at knowing the release dates of their own records from before the internet era. One of the worst examples is Island Records telling everyone for decades that Nick Drake's Bryter Layter came out on 1 November 1970, to the point that two biographies and Island's own deluxe reissue of the album quote this date. We now know that Island got not only the day wrong, not just the month wrong, but even the year wrong... it was 5 March 1971. Richard3120 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- More than once I've found a band's official website give completely the wrong release date, so I never consider an official website or social media as reliable. That makes me think of how Bowie's website unearthed "new evidence" from RCA Records that stated The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars came out on June 16, 1972 and not June 6 (as was widely reported for decades before). (June 16 is currently in the infobox and body). To me crap like that makes no sense and only adds more confusion. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed – hstorically, release dates were always on Tuesdays in the US, but if the release date was from Europe, it would have been on a Monday... UK release dates for both singles and albums were on Mondays from around 1984–85 until Global Release Day in 2015 changed it to Fridays all around the world. Richard3120 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- @GanzKnusper: regarding the fact that the dates are one week apart; both dates are Tuesdays, pre-2015 release day in the US. If it was a release date from a different country, it wouldn't necessarily be on Tuesday. I've actually encountered an even crazier case, where I found sources for 3 different Tuesdays. As for these other examples, they all have something in common: if you check revisions from around 2010, they listed different release dates. AllMusic provides the release date in its sidebar, which is to be avoided per WP:A/S. Sourcing release dates for older albums is the worst, especially after all these unsourced changes stayed up for a decade. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 15:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I always go with the contemporary source. Modern–day sources often don't have the actual data to hand, and in fact a lot of them get their information from Wikipedia, which creates a WP:CIRCULAR sourcing argument. The people running websites and social media will upload whatever information they are told to upload, they are not fact-checking the dates. More than once I've found a band's official website give completely the wrong release date, so I never consider an official website or social media as reliable. Richard3120 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- To put things honestly, I like to remind you that the Sep 23 date was from the official social media page for the group, possibly verified as an official page by independent sources, not just any self-published source like you are framing it. To get back to the main focus of the section, I have encountered these situations so much and it drives me crazy in 1980s and 1970s albums, when the only sources for release dates were magazine and newspaper listings and PR. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)