Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:ALBUM)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Albums (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Pending TfDs for navbox templates for individual Bob Dylan albums[edit]

Hi, WP:Albums members. There are two pending TfD discussions for navboxes for Bob Dylan album tracks here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 4#Another Side of Bob Dylan. These two navboxes are apparently similar in function to other navigation aids for Bob Dylan albums and discography; so the question has been asked "Does WP:Albums have an internal consensus whether such navbox footers are appropriate for individual albums?" Your participation in the linked TfD discussions is welcome and would be helpful. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

XLR8R[edit]

I recently noted that XLR8R wasn't included in the sources list. Is it reliable? Myxomatosis57 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say so, considering they were a print magazine for around 20 years... Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
our article on XLR8R suggests that when it was founded, it was actually just a zine—most likely independent and self-published. i don't think material from that period of its history should be used. the article is unclear about when it changed to a proper publication with a full editing process. current material published on the Internet from this source is probably fine, though. ~ Boomur [] 16:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Alice Cooper's Love It to Death—Featured Article candidate[edit]

I've nominated the Love It to Death article as a Featured Article Candidate. Please participate in the article's review here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Albums MOS for chart placements[edit]

Hello. I've just finished a massive merge to an album article that has what I'd consider to be a difficult-to-understand chart placement section - difficult to compare markets or different versions, info scattered around everywhere, takes up a ton of room. Yet, as far as I can tell, breaking everything up into a bunch of little tables is what the albums MOS prescribes(?). The album was released in a total of four versions. Some markets tallied all four as one; other markets tallied all four separately. Can anyone take a look at this article XOXO (album)#Charts and make suggestions about improving the readability of the charts section while keeping it in line with the MOS? This issue comes up a lot for albums from Korea, so this info will help me in the future, too. (Please ignore shortcomings in the rest of the article, as it's still in progress.) Thank you! Shinyang-i (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Using the Cover Art Archive as a source for cover art[edit]

MusicBrainz is currently able to display cover art from the Internet Archive's Cover Art Archive. Evidently the Internet Archive has some kind of API for accessing these images. See here for example [1]. Would it be possible/legal to leverage the same API on Wikipedia to display cover art for albums? Please let me know if there is a better project to discuss this in. Sizeofint (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Very unlikely that a custom development to support one external site would be made. It also renders Wikipedia fragile if that site collpases/changes. We can host low-res images of cover art, provided we use it. Were we to re-write our Fair Use policy, we could host it even if it wasn't used in an article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough02:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC).

All Music[edit]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up a million times already, but I couldn't find mention of it sifting through the first 10 pages of 50, but All Music shouldn't be considered a reliable source. This is particularly true on underground music in where All Music writers have no knowledge of. They clearly make genre errors very often, which can be proven to be true by fact checking on other websites that specialize in said genres. There have been countless complaints about All Music on various band pages on Wikipedia about this.JanderVK (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The textual information on AllMusic is about as reliable as you can get. They are extremely well-referenced and used by other reliable sources, they have an editorial staff, and many respected journalists contribute to the site. However, the genre tags on the sidebar are often wrong or even conflict with the written review, and furthermore are not attributable to a specific writer. You are right that this discussion has come up a million times before. The consensus is that the prose at AllMusic is strongly reliable, but the genre tags are unreliable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, there is a strong consensus that they meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, so Jander's going to need a lot stronger case than the generalities listed above to convince people otherwise, especially considering empty claims like "genre errors", when genre are a largely subjective thing - there's going to be discord with viewpoints on genre no matter what the source, and there's usually multiple potential possibilities on its interpretation. Yes, its best to stay away from their box that lists genre on the side, but that's already been established. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@JanderVK: Do you have for-instances? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think AllMusic is among the most reliable sources. If the reviewer makes a statement then the editorial board backs it up. The best JanderVK is going to be able to do is argue a local case where a notional AllMusic review is found to be at odds with several other reliable sources which are in agreement with each other. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and if that happens, then there can be discussion on the talk page to see if there can be a consensus to not include it as a source in that given instance, or just give the Allmusic stance a little less weight or something. There's definitely not anything that would warrant making it unusable on a whole. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to chime in, I brought it up back in 2007 (see this comment), though not in the context of (nor on behalf of) WP:ALBUM. But it isn't just this WikiProject: WP:JAZZ has approached something of a consensus about All Music's use of genres/styles, as well (see, for example, this archived discussion). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I should clarify that by "it," I meant Allmusic's genre classification system. I don't have any quibble with citing the text reviews themselves. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Genre warriors are going to complain about any source that doesn't recognize their "Thrash-Swing-Neo-Pop-Punk" genre. Assigning a genre is a subjective process and Allmusic employs experts in the field. Having a different opinion does not mean Allmusic is not a reliable source. --NeilN talk to me 21:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Information on how AllMusic works: [2], [3]. --Lapadite (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If there is concern about AllMusic's editor's prose, then we should discuss it. If there are issues with the genre cloud—the group of genres, usually on the left side of band articles—it wouldn't be the first time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Is AllMusic perfect? No, far from it. But their textual reviews/articles on albums, songs, artists, bands or genres is among the best and most reliable anywhere on the internet. As someone mentioned above, there are lots of very well respected music journalists writing for the site and they have an editorial staff proof reading and fact checlking what those journalists write. As such, it's hard to quibble with it being anything other than a reliable source for Wikipedia music articles. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
100% agree with that. — sparklism hey! 05:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

SAW II discussion[edit]

There is currently discussion about the list of trivia and prose on the article for Selected Ambient Works II. If anyone could Talk:Selected_Ambient_Works_Volume_II#Remove_list_of_the_use_of_the_song_in_media add to the discussion here, it would be useful. Thank you! Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Differing album ratings[edit]

I'd like to get some clarification about what rating to use when an album rating appears to have changed over time. The original rating for Little Earthquakes in Rolling Stone in April 1992 was 3½ stars out of five – anybody with access to this copy of the magazine can verify it for themselves (I've checked it twice to make sure I wasn't imagining things). However, 23 years later the online version of the album review has reprinted the original text, but with the rating uprated to 4 stars out of five. Which of the two ratings should be used? My personal opinion is that it should be the original, not just because that's what it was on the album's release, but also because Rolling Stone has a habit of deleting articles on its website from time to time so the newer rating may get lost at some stage. Is there any guidance on this? And yes, I do realise it's pretty pedantic to be arguing over half a star. Richard3120 (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to put (1992) after the 3½ stars. Maybe just cite the print version and not the website in the citation. My $0.02, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gyrofrog: I agree with you, and indeed that is what I did, but it has been reverted twice by editors citing the online review instead. Hence my wanting to get some kind of consensus as to which rating/review to use, as I don't want to get into an edit war. Richard3120 (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest listing both. I think this is a similar case to Pinkerton, except in this case it's the same review with a different rating, not a whole new review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, good idea – I've done that, let's see what happens. Richard3120 (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Rockfreaks[edit]

I recently tried adding this site ([4]) as a source to an article, only for the source to be challenged by another editor. This post in the archives ([5]) gives some indication that it might be a reliable source. Any thoughts? Kokoro20 (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It has been added a few times to the article. The website's tagline, "Music From A Fan's Point Of View", is what gave me pause, but http://www.rockfreaks.net/about settled it. They claim to be the "largest online magazine in Denmark - operating since 2003 - a magazine fully owned and run by people whose sole passion is music" and http://www.rockfreaks.net/about/staff doesn't support that it's a professional site. I'll let other editors comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess the question is how do we define professional?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Please elaborate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Simply from a quick skim of the site's album reviews, where one can link from an author's initials to their role at rockfreaks, I'd say it looks good. Certainly, there are sources we do accept currently that provide less in the way of detail/validity about their staff. I don't know anything about the site, such as the degree to which it's recognised, I admit. Also, I think the tagline "Music From A Fan's Point Of View" is pretty innocuous – it's simply aiming for an audience (as so many online review sites are) that would find the likes of Rolling Stone, Uncut and Mojo too old school and stuffy, no? JG66 (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The London Session[edit]

I came across this article by chance while trying to answer this question at the Teahouse. Is it common for article to be created for albums that have yet to be released? It seems to be a case of WP:CRYSTAL to me, but I'm not completely sure. Also, I am a little concerned by the edit sum for this edit . Taken at face value, it appears that there is possible COI editing involved and the intent of the article is to be promotional in nature. Not too familiar with album articles, so would appreciate any input from those who are. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It does seem too premature, yes, as well as unnecessary. Personally, I don't think Wikipedia should cover "breaking news" for a commercial release such as this; a mention in the artist's bio article perhaps, but no more than that. And, boy, I agree – that editor's comment ("the album is coming out in a month and the bands management expressed they want the article posted") is a worry. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input JG66. The article had been proposed for deletion per WP:PROD, but the tag was removed by the editor with the apparent COI. The article has many issues, e.g., COI editing, bare urls, non-reliable sources, promotional tone, etc., but those could be tagged for improvement through editing and are typically not considered to be good reasons for nominating an article for deletion. The article also doesn't seem to qualify for speedy deletion per WP:A9 since there is an article about the band. So, the question then is whether being "premature" is a valid reason for nominating an article about an album for deletion. WP:TOOSOON#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films says that "Generally speaking, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been released, should not have their own articles unless the production itself has the coverage showing notable per the notability guidelines." Could the same be said for albums? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I'd noticed that the same editor was behind the removal of the AfD tag. Also, their contribs suggest their whole presence on Wikipedia is to ensure this article remains; and the only reference that vaguely cuts it, imo, is Fricke at Rolling Stone – but even that's a bit of a puff piece, really. So all in all, it doesn't look too good(!).
I think an article like this should be subject to the sort of restrictions you've quoted for upcoming films, yes. I don't mean to sound like a snob (I mostly work on only Beatles-related articles), but I don't see this Umphrey's McGee album as having "the coverage showing notable per the notability guidelines". I hasten to add that's partly because of the lack of quality references, and it's definitely because of the apparent COI/promotional tone.
I was trying to think of similar pre-release examples … The only one that comes to mind is George Harrison's Early Takes compilation from 2012. I thought that article was slightly premature (begun on 27 March, before a 1 May release date). On the other hand, the tone there was absolutely correct, and (not that the text mentioned it yet) the disc had certainly gained notability, since the music was from the Abbey Road vaults and/or Harrison's near-legendary personal archive; it had featured in Scorsese's much-discussed documentary film; and the CD had already appeared as a bonus disc with the UK-only Deluxe Edition DVD set in November 2011. JG66 (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again JG66. Just for reference, technically the article was prodded for deletion not nominated for deletion. If it had been an AfD notice that was removed, then I would've simply re-added it. But, since it has been already prodded once, it cannot be prodded again per WP:DEPROD. Do you have any suggestions on how to best proceed from here? I've added some cleanup tags to the article, but notability is not something usually obtained through editing, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)