Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources[edit]

Have all of these sources been vetted for reliability and independence? I know that AllMusic has been questioned as a reliable source due to its inclusion policy, and lack of standards. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Code (band) From what I've seen in the past, editors have considered as unreliable as a source to establish topic notability and As for, I don't see how it can be a measure of notability since it accepts virtually all comers ( submissions). See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive continued ; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive258#User:Temeku reported by User: (Result: ) If is not reliable for genre classifications, should there be a note to that effect in this table? --Bejnar (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This...has not been my experience at all. I've seen an overwhelming support for Allmusic being reliable in all things except for using the genre listed in their version of an infobox, because its uses a lot of broad, vague genre. Even then, it can be used for genre if its mentioned in the actual prose. I'm surprised to see this, considering it's used in almost every album article out there, and is virtually never disputed. I also find it strange that your evidence is a single user's comment at an AFD from years ago? Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
AllMusic is suitable for helping to establish notability. The only problem we have with them is their genre sidebar which may be contradicted by the reliable, expert prose review. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. And I think that's what the RSN link above was all about - their rather liberal use of vague genre like "heavy metal" or "pop/rock" to virtually every rock band that ever existed, for example. Just stay away from the sidebar genre listings and you're fine. I guess it wouldn't hurt to add that to the chart if its not already on there, but otherwise, it definitely belongs in the reliable/usable section. Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Sources to this list?[edit]

This is a different topic than that above, but heading title is fitting for it: Should we merge or redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Sources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources? The album project list is active and maintained, and far more extensive, while the music page list hasn't been edited since 2007, and is highly specific to only a small number of magazine issues out of thousands upon thousands of published works. Also, the album source list has become pretty much a good list for music articles in general, so maybe lead for it should be expanded in scope?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favor of anything that makes it easier for these sources to be recommended for musician biographies as well as articles about albums and songs. The sources guideline was probably placed at "music" instead of "albums" because it is applicable to more than albums. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Support - there really shouldn't conceptually be any differences between the two lists, and I'm always concerned obstinate editors are going to be like "No, that source is only reliable for album articles, not band articles", when referencing the ALBUM list in the context of band articles source discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 23:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of reorganizing, do we really need to have the sources organized by "online/print" and "online only" statuses? It...doesn't really matter, right? I've always thought it should be one big list, alphabetized, rather than 2 lists with a rather meaningless split... Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

i think there's some merit to serparating (or at least sorting?) by format but maybe "online/print" and "print only" would make more sense? obviously online sources will be more accessible to most users. maybe just as a column in the table though? ~ Boomur [] 06:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of the terms "clean/unclean vocals" on Wikipedia[edit]

Should Wikipedia use the terms "clean/unclean vocals"? Weigh in here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Use of the terms "clean/unclean vocals" on Wikipedia. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. They're common terms in specific genres of metal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's my stance too. I'll leave a comment there. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


When u list the list Christopher Joyner on keyboards, but when u click his name it comes up as a professor who dies in 2011. This Christopher Joyner isn't dead. He just joined the band Heart as their new keyboard player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

i found a link to Christopher Joyner on this article, It's About Time (Marc Ford album), and removed the link. if there are any more pages that incorrectly link to Christopher C. Joyner, please post the names of those articles here, and note that in the future it would be helpful to say which article you are referring to when you leave a comment on this page! thanks ~ Boomur [] 04:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Quietus[edit]

I notice that there's no mention of The Quietus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. It looks like a perfectly usable site to me, with many well-written reviews and exclusive interviews - what do other editors think about including it on the list of sources? Thanks — sparklism hey! 14:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Added it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I looked it over, and I approve of it as well. (Established staff and editors, some of which wrote for other RS's, professional website, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Rapid work guys, thanks! — sparklism hey! 16:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Studio" albums?[edit]

While I've found discussions in the archive that address questions in this direction, I haven't found anything that is right on target. At issue is the number of "studio" albums at Blue Öyster Cult (and associated articles). I've started a talk discussion there. Two questions in one here.

1) Cult Classic is new studio recordings of previously released songs. Is this a "studio album"?

2) Bad Channels is a soundtrack with 2 songs by BOC, 9 songs by 5 other artists and a full film score by BOC. Is this a "studio album"? Comments and/or reference to previous work on this would be appreciated. In hopes of keeping any discussion in one place, please respond at Talk:Blue_Öyster_Cult#How_many_studio_albums.3F. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It Won't Be Soon Before Long[edit]

There's an IP added unproperly sources, especially Rolling Stones where says "one of major pop rock sellers" does not means a pop rock album. Has any reliable sources for others? (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That's to It Won't Be Soon Before Long? Please don't link headings.
I see a lot of anonymous editors adding material to the article. Which ones in particular? Which IP address?
It's probably best to discuss that on the article's talk page, but since you've opened the discussion here, let's finish the discussion here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Clash magazine[edit]

I notice that there's no mention of Clash at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. It looks like a perfectly usable site to me - what do other editors think about including it on the list of sources? Thanks — sparklism hey! 12:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's won "Magazine of the Year" awards, so it's clearly respected by its peers. Online editor Mike Diver has previously written for BBC Music and Drowned in Sound before moving to, and I think both of those sites are considered reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and added it. I would say, as a general rule, if it's a print publication, has a Wikipedia article, and isn't a tabloid, it's reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you, but as an aside, that's going to be a tricky rule of thumb to apply in future – I doubt we'll see many new reliable sources appear in print form from now on. Richard3120 (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Though the sources list right now is not exhaustive. I thought about going through the different music magazine categories and adding every publication listed, but I don't want to take all that time, at least not now.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Support per above. Not sure why Drowned in Sound is considered reliable? I see no site info on editorial staff and reviewers appear to be users. --Lapadite (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right Lapadite, so perhaps it shouldn't be included as a reliable site, but it underlines what I said about how difficult it is going to be going forward to decide what is a reliable site or not – virtually all music review publications are going to be online from now on, and virtually all of them are going to start as a blog or a bedroom company. The days of staff writers are over, and we're going to have to deal more and more with freelancers whose journalistic background is vague, to say the least. Richard3120 (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussions of Drowned in Sound can be found here and here. The second link I think definitively settles the question. The site, as mentioned in the one discussion, is used by Metacritic.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so it's on Metacritic. I still don't find these 'professional reviews' on the site nor any information on professional editing staff. None evident when clicking on reviews linked on the main page. e.g., review #1 by a Paul Faller aka 'LetsGetCynical'; review #2 by a Haydon Spenceley aka 'fire_on_the_skin', etc. And the site links to its Wikipedia page at the bottom. I'm I missing something? Are these main page reviews and random reviewers actually considered reliable to cite? --Lapadite (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles on compilation albums by various artists[edit]

I am wondering what is the point of many of the Wikipedia articles on "various artist" compilation albums. Many of them are nothing more than a track listing, and due to the lack of any interesting information to add, most of these articles are likely to remain just that, often without citations. Speaking from a UK point of view, the only possible exceptions that you could make are for the three annual Now That's What I Call Music! albums (by far and away the biggest selling compilations every year), but even here the only likely citable references for each article are for the release date and the highest chart position in the compilations chart, which as they always reach number 1 seems pointless anyway. So even for these albums, it will be difficult to expand them beyond a stub article consisting of a track listing.

I think the majority of articles about compilation albums should be deleted, or at the very least, if they belong to a series then to create one article that describes the series and just lists all the albums in that series – see Ministry of Sound Anthems for an example. The Power Ballads series is among the worst offenders – see Power Ballads (compilation album) and tell me if you can make any sense of the article and the track listings, and it's all "referenced" by links to sites around the world where you can purchase the album... and there are similar articles for the other five albums in the series. Personally I don't believe any of these articles are worth keeping. But the point is, I think we need some kind of consensus as to what articles of this type should be kept... very few, I reckon. Richard3120 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the album, various artists or not, it should be deleted if there is no coverage in reliable sources or kept and expanded if there are discussions in reliable sources. In short, only keep if the album is notable. If there is nothing much beyond a track listing on the album article, it would be good to research the notability of that album, and delete if nothing can be found in online or print sources (or audio or video, though that's probably far less common).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
That's pretty much how I see it as well, to be honest – as I said, looking at the UK charts over the last ten or twenty years I think the Now! albums are the only ones you could make a case for keeping, and even then it's borderline. Richard3120 (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
According to WP:NALBUMS: That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Indicating notability is required for any article on an album including multiple artists compilations, unless otherwise stated in a Wikipedia guideline. Victão Lopes Fala! 00:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Brit Awards 2014 and Brit Awards 2015 are absolutely typical of what I mean – Hadji87 is also the most enthusiastic editor of the Now! album articles. I admire his dedication but I'm not sure he gets the point of what makes a notable article. These compilations may make number 1 on the compilation chart but that doesn't really mean anything, and none of the other references used are valid. I can't see how these articles will ever be expanded and improved from their current states, and the same goes for many similar ones. Richard3120 (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
If they are part of a series, they could be all merged into one list as you suggested. Individual recordings will have to be analyzed on their own merits, and WP:NALBUMS should apply. Merging them with the article about the record label, for example, might be an option. Victão Lopes Fala! 20:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Redirecting the articles would be an acceptable alternative, too. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It's difficult to redirect multiple artist compilations a lot of the time, though – where do you redirect them to, if not part of a wider series of albums? With the Brit Awards albums, I would suggest they could be merged into the relevant articles about the awards ceremonies themselves, as a separate section. The Power Ballads albums appear to be a lost cause to me. Richard3120 (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

MetalSucks - reliable?[edit]

Is MetalSucks reliable for reviews and news articles? It's been stated by MetalHammer that they are insightful if that means anything. SilentDan (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For reviews, I would say yes absolutely. And actually their interviews are also top notch -- if I'm not mistaken, the two main guys who run the website used to work in the industry at record labels for a while, but wanted to do this instead. Other content is more of a grey area. One writer Sergeant D produces purely satirical content, some of the content is factually based but satirically written similar to The A.V. Club, and the rest is straight fact. So I would say it's generally reliable with some minor caution here and there. And as someone who has submitted news tips there, I know that they also do a fair amount of fact checking before posting anything as well. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - Especially for reviews. I've seen some seriously bad written content from them. I'll try to dig up some examples. Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's one. Terrible review, very unprofessional. Is this the sort of journalism we call reliable? (For the record, I was pretty disappointed by the album myself, so my concerns aren't related to the actual music...) Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Reviews are opinion pieces and all publications will occasionally break the mold and try something different. Take this review from The New York Times where the entire thing is in the form of questions, some of which might be seen as unprofessional, like: Hey, did you try that blue drink, the one that glows like nuclear waste? The watermelon margarita? Any idea why it tastes like some combination of radiator fluid and formaldehyde? -- and yet, this review was very well received in the journalism community. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but that "review" is a far cry from any sort of review at all. It's an image labeling the genre as "drek" and a 1/5 rating given. There's literally no prose, just a cheap shot at a band, with the label "review" plastered over the top. Pure misinformation and a bad score in an official review? Professional writing wouldn't allow garbage like that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, reviews are opinion pieces and sometimes publications will get creative or break the mold when they see fit. If MetalSucks felt that a screenshot spoke more about an album than words alone could, that's their right to do. That's the right of any publication, and its professionalism should not be judged based on this alone. Another example would be the famous case of Fortune's review of a Chris Brown album where the writer turned to the reader, said "screw you" if you think he should be judged based on his music talents while ignoring his personal life, explicitly said "don't buy this album" and rated it "no stars ever" where a normal star-rating would go. This could be seen as horribly unprofessional. Should Wikipedia deem every single article that Fortune publishes as unprofessional "garbage" because of this one review, that again, is an opinion piece? Fezmar9 (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
And again, my qualm is that nothing there constitutes a "review" at all at the MetalSucks, just a lazy screenshot. Reviewers are free to trash music as much as they please, I don't oppose that, it's just that they don't bother to say anything in their "review". Furthermore, I believe there's a large difference between the Nationally Published printed work examples you give, and "MetalSucks". What are their credentials for being a reliable source? Are they journalists? Or just some randos on the internet blogging about "Metal"? They have an "About" page, but what are their credentials? Do they have a history of writing for reputable sources? Do they have an editorial policy? History for fact checking? I guess maybe I'd be easier convinced if you gave more of a reason why they should be considered reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot one of my favorite examples! Leonard Maltin's review for Isn't It Romantic? that landed in the Guinness World Records for being the world's shortest review: "No." But back to MetalSucks. As I said above, I believe the two main founders have music industry experience. Because everyone on the website uses pseudonyms, it's a bit tricky to say exactly what their records are, but posts like this one where Vince Neilstein recounts his time spent at Atlantic Records and hearing a new Staid track for the first time pop up every now and then that suggest they're more than just "randos," but rather former industry guys who wanted to start a metal blog. Also as I said above, they do have a good reputation for fact checking. I have personally submitted many news tips over the years, some of which they've flat out refused to publish because they couldn't verify it. In one recent case, I emailed MetalSucks and said it appeared the band Old Man Gloom might be playing a joke on everyone about their latest album, and submitted several pieces of evidence such as catalog numbers, AllMusic pages and online retail store entries to support my claim. MetalSucks reached out the label and band[1] who denied everything and supplied a reasonable reason why the evidence appeared the way it did, and MetalSucks emailed me back saying they wouldn't publish anything (even though it later turned out to be true). A lesser blog would have taken my evidence and posted an entry immediately with a headline of "CHECK OUT THIS JUICY RUMOR!" So, in my personal experiences with the publication, they have a higher degree of fact-checking accuracy than say AbsolutePunk and, both of which have been deemed as reliable by the project. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)