Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Gearslutz

I understand that this site's article was deleted b/c of lack of notability, but user Jrod2 has been removing it as a citation for the article The Root, and in his edit summary, he assumes that the deletion of the article suggests that it shouldnt be used as a source. In this case, the source is a forum of the song's (article) producer discussing his production of the song (link), and therefore its valuable to the article. I've seen blogspot, forums and twitter account of artists/musicians used as references on album/song articles before, so this doesnt seem different. Other sites such as RapReviews and HipHopDX have had their articles deleted on wikipedia, but are still used as sources for music articles, with the former noted by Metacritic as a professional review site. Does the article Gearslutz's deletion warrant its deletion as a source? Dan56 (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are classed as self-published sources, see WP:SPS. While under certain circumstances, self-published sources are allowed, they are never permitted as sources about living persons: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". As the reference was used for information regarding Charlie Hunter, who is a living person, the source is not permissible. --JD554 (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What if its used just to support information regarding Elevado and the techniques he discussed about producing the song? Dan56 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I been trying to explain this user Dan56 but he won't listen. I been very patient and understanding of his misguided use of our guidelines (been there done that myself) but now he is ignoring me altogether. Perhaps my initial comment in the edit summary was wrong, it isnt bcause of the deletion of that site's article for having problems with non-notability but more like the fact that it's a public web forum where everybody's true identity is always a question of verification and sometimes complete doubt. He wants to use something an audio engineer said at that web forum about someone else and certain events. This is goes against our guidelines for questionable sources and may even be a blatant violation of WP:BOLP. He asks "What if its used just to support information regarding Elevado and the techniques he discussed about producing the song?" The answer is MAYBE that info could be used at Elevado's own biography page though I doubt anybody will accept using Gearslutz as the main third party source. For the last time, if that info doesnt exist in major sites or reputable publications, then WP dont need all that. I rest my case. Jrod2 (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Dont get your panties in a bunc, aint nobody gonna respond to this section. As u can see, I posted this question a while ago and the only user that initially responded has not been around to respond to the second question. But jeez, "misguided use"? The article The Root passed B-class assessment with the source your questioning, so I'm gonna feel the need to be sure about its reliability. Dan56 (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mind you that Im not the one calling users a "dick" or go reverting without making sure like there is no tomorrow. The user you asked gave you already the answer which is consistent with what i been saying all along. Just show me where you got the B-class assessment to use that web forum as a reliable source and I'd gladly back ya up if someone else tries to delete the ref. fair enuff?? Jrod2 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

U were misguided in reading the last comment, the user has not been available to answer the second question (highlighted that for u). Now I dont see how your opening statement is relevant or productive to this matter either. As for the assessment, its available at the article's talk page, as any assessment for an article can be found at. The specific assessment edit is here. But regardless, I'm just trying to get an answer for this question, since the information that can be supported by the source is notable to the article, and whether WP "need all that" if it doesnt "exist" in a "major" site or "reputable" publication is disputable. What u cited at my talk page (Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material) may support my argument, as it says unless written by the subject of the biographical material. The material is biographical as it, by definition, relates to the facts or events in a person's life. Elevado wrote the blog piece and the content of his work on the album is biographical, as his working on the album was an event/fact of his life. And thats what I wanted to be clear about with User:JD554. Unfortunately, he hasnt be around Wikipedia since last responding the first question in this section. Dan56 (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

U still dont get it Bro, do ya?? The exception "unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material" is meant to exclude material that was written on ebooks or *maybe* on their own personal web sites. It doesn't mean that it makes it OK to use what was written on public forums even if the person who wrote is presumed to be this Eleveado brother, much less if it ain't about his own biography but something that happened supposedly while recording some artist album. Do ya understand now?? You been around for lil' over two years now n' I do appreciate your devotion to making this a good encyclopedia but ya still dont know how to interpret some of our guidelines. That's what I meant by "misguided". Also this user JD554 has basically already told ya same thing, what more do ya want?? Its OK to make mistakes Yo and I think you just wanna understand our complex guidelines and policies (been there too :) Jrod2 (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi dan, my name is Greg and I'm a senior in HS doing a paper on recording and some of my favorite albums. Russell is one of my favorite recorders and that's why I'm here. In doing my paper in summer school over the last few weeksl, the links that you put into russelles recording techniques kept disappearing and then they were there and then gone again. I thought I was going insane lol. My teacher then showed my the history of edits and that's how I found this. There's a whole world of activity behind the scenes lol. I clicked on your user name to ask you what was going on and that's how I found you here. Out of curiosity I clicked on joes name and looked at his history and there's a lot of activity around the gearslutz links. So I kept clicking and there is more to the story. If you look At his history, he's in a jihad against gearslutz. I don't know how to do the wiki links but if you look down his history you can see. He was in a debate with chase and then told him he was banned 3 times from the site. Then he threatened the owner in one post so you have to hit the history button to see that. He is not a good wiki editor from what I've read. I'm going to write wiki to show them. My teacher also read what I found and is going to write them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.217 (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

He may get a little personal at times, but he seems to have good faith with the guidelines. I am not concerned though with him, but the source and the article, and if u would like to help with this matter, u can contact some established editors about this. I'd appreciate it. Thanks Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My response to Jrod2's previous comment: youre right, I dont get "it", and I'm not confident about u gettin it either. Which is why I came to this talk page. Now I dont think this decision has too be rushed, I mean its not there's no tomorrow. Other opinions/interpretations of the guidelines from users cant hurt. As for the piece u offered about what the "exception" implies about excluding material written on ebooks or personal sites, WP:BLP states "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites" and lists some rules, which may be interpretated differently. Now since u and I are the only ones contributing to this discussion, I'd say its not too efficient to just leave it like this. Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi dan, thanks for responding. I like your contributions to wiki and I think they are useful. Joe is not useful and he has a beef with gearslutz, so ignore him. The history thing is very enlightening, you can see all of the behind the scenes stuff. I had a different impression of wiki until my teacher showed me what goes on behind the pages. Now I don't trust it because of people like Joe. Sad. Keep writing good stuff so I can learn, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.217 (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If I had a *beef* with Gearslutz why would I create the article about Gearslutz?? This aint about how i think content should be entered but our guidelines. Jrod2 (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 11:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've requested additional opinions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gearslutz. Perhaps that will bring more feedback than the request here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Moon, I was also thinking 'bout doing just that.Jrod2 (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Album streams in EL

According to WP:ELYES, "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the 'Links normally to be avoided' criteria apply." Would that make it acceptable for a link containing a free and legal stream of an album to be included as part of an album article's EL section? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not if it comes from a social network site. BOVINEBOY2008 18:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes yes, I already know your response to the question. Could I get some responses from other editors too please? The reason I came here was for some third-party input in a dispute between Bovineboy and myself at Talk:Meridional (album). Fezmar9 (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no blanket ban on social networking sites. WP:ELNO says to avoid them but "a link to an official page of the article's subject" may be excepted. So if the page is verified to be controlled by the artist it it may be linked. ... And I just read the discussion on Talk:Meridional (album). ... I agree with Fezmar9. External links are about providing links which contain information that cannot be included in the article. And what better way to let readers know what the album sounds like than to let them hear it. I say if it is free and legal it can be link to. - Kollision (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If we can be sure that it's (a) a legit site, that (b) it isn't a shop website, (c) the page being linked to isn't full of advertising and (d) the page being linked isn't only going to be there for a short while, then it may be acceptable. This probably makes such a case quite rare though.--Michig (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree w/ Michig; we ought to make sure that the site hosting the stream is "official" (ie. sanctioned by the artist or label), not a retailer, and that the stream isn't just a temporary promotional thing; to be useful to readers, we'd want it to be sure the stream is going to be active for some length of time. For a lot of recent albums, I notice that official streams are often mentioned & cited in a "promotion" or "release" section of the article. In that case we're already letting readers know that there's a stream, and linking to it, so putting it in an EL section as well is rather redundant. I'd actually rather have it mentioned & cited in article text, as part of coverage of the album's promotion, than in an EL section. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz (continued...)

Continuing the question two sections before, this Q&A interview with producer Russell Elevado be used on the article "The Root" to support information only regarding Elevado and the techniques he discussed about producing the song "The Root"? Dan56 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Two seperate albums released but both are marketed as her second album.

Ok here's the main problem. Natasha Bedingfield released her debut album Unwritten worldwide. Then in the UK she released N.B. (2007) as her second album. However in the U.S. she released Pocketful of Sunshine (2009) which contained some of the songs from N.B. but also new songs and was packed completely differently as well as being named different. Her next release is called 'Strip Me' and according to three reputable sources including 2 from her record labels 'Strip Me' is her third studio release even though three albums have already been released. Those sources are: NY:prnewswire from Epic Records, artist's official website and Press International (mini press release).

On wiki currently it says:

• Debut album: Unwritten
• Second album: N.B.
• Third album: Pocketful of Sunshine.

My opinion is that the two albums (N.B. and Pocket of sunshine) should be merged into one page because they are effectively ONE studio release according to her official website, record label and media. The page could be named:

1. N.B. (album) - this is one of the pages already existing and since Pocketful of Sunshine contains songs from N.B., it should be merged here.
2. N.B. / Pocketful of Sunshine - reflecting both releases
3. Natasha Bedingfield's second studio album - my preferred option where both pages would be merged.

What do people think? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the merge is a good idea. I think common name should prevail, though, over the unworkable Natasha Bedingfield's second studio album, and the article should be titled either N.B. (album) (and Pocketful of Sunshine redirect to it) or Pocketful of Sunshine (and N.B. (album) redirect to it), whichever. Of those two, I'd lean toward N.B. (album), as having been released first, but it really doesn't matter much. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If left separate, then noting that Strip Me' is the third album released in the UK and the third album released in the U.S., and the fourth overall, would also work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes more sense to me. Since the two albums contain different tracks and have different names, I think they should stay as separate articles. The same is true of some Beatles albums, where Capitol put together different albums in the US containing some tracks from UK albums. (See Yesterday and Today, for instance.) Any chronology we give in these cases needs to differ by country, as JHunterJ suggested. PL290 (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment: italic article titles

An RfC has been raised concerning the use of italics in article titles (i.e., rendering the main title in italics on the Wikipedia page). A guideline currently restricts the use of this feature to "special cases", but there is now a suggestion that it could be more widely used, wherever appropriate to the article's title. Opinions are invited at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. PL290 (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Article titles § Wikipedia:Requests for comment:Use of italics in article titles

 – Gyrofrog (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AlbumCaps

"With" is a preposition; should this be included in the list of words to not capitalize? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 14:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Prepositions are already mentioned as words not to capitalise, the list after it are examples rather than an exhaustive list. --JD554 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

His Band and the Street Choir FAC

I nominated His Band and the Street Choir as a Featured Article candidate about a week ago and has received little interest in terms of reviews. If anyone would like to review the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/His Band and the Street Choir/archive3 it'd been a great help. Thanks  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When to use the "language" parameter in Template:Infobox album

When should the "language" parameter be used in {{Infobox film}}? The documentation isn't clear, but I would have thought it was relevant for any album that isn't wholly in English. I added the line to the infobox at Hurricane Venus, but it's been removed several times by another editor on the basis that the information is already in the lead (which doesn't make sense to me). Since I don't often edit album articles, some input from other users would be welcome. PC78 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

When the album's lyrics (assuming the music contains vocals) are in a language other than English. For example, English and French or only in Korean, as in your case.--Cannibaloki 17:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So it should go in the infobox? That's pretty much what I thought. I'm reluctant to put it straight back in for fear of getting sucked into an edit war, so I'll leave it a day or so and see if the other user at least responds to the comment I left on his talk page. Thanks. PC78 (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I reverted the edit of user YumeChaser (talk · contribs).--Cannibaloki 18:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Cannibaloki, appropriate to use for albums with non-English language lyrics. J04n(talk page) 18:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Any guidelines for this situation?

I'm intending on starting an article for the concert film 7 by Supersilent. As the material is entirely improvised I don't feel that the standard concert film format + infobox would be appropriate.

My options:

• improvise by combining an album track listing section with a concert film infobox
• call it a studio album (pros: the live studio album 6 has this format already; cons: standard album is doubly misleading for 7, a live release with an integral video component)
• call it a live album (pros: slightly less misleading than standard album as it mentions the live aspect; cons: two other Supersilent albums could firmly be called live albums (audio recordings from a concert or concerts), and including a live album with a video component such as 7 could complicate this)
• use the "other" infobox and improvise, calling it a "Video live album" (pros: most correct option; cons: I would be setting a precedent by myself without consulting other editors)

Whatever the album articles are formatted as, I believe the discography and chronology should treat all their releases identically.

I'm currently favouring the "other" option but I didn't want to begin before asking here.

Anybody else have any feelings about this or any other options?

RWyn (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Promo singles

{{Promo singles}} is a relatively recent fork of {{Singles}}, and is being used in the infobox for a handfull of albums. Is this something that should be included in the infobox, or should the infobox be reserved for proper singles only? I was considering taking this template to WP:TfD, but I wanted to get a second opinion here first. PC78 (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I've started a discussion at TfD; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Promo singles. PC78 (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Professional reviews

Excuse me, but why would you want to move the professional reviews box when many people have gotten use to looking at it from the top right hand corner box? It has caused a great INCONVENIENCE and I think something as big as this should be discussed with all the administrators in wikipedia, preferably a poll should be held. Moving the review box to another location is like moving somebody's pinky to the back of your palm. I think you should review this immediately before further complaints arise. I THINK WHAT WE NEED IS TO FIND SOME PROFESSIONAL REVIEWERS SUCH AS ALLMUSIC. BUT NOT INCLUDE ALL THE PROFESSIONAL REVIEWS. The reason people look at reviews is to make sure its a worthwhile album to buy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronpon (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been this way for a while, see archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 34#Professional reviews moved from infobox. I didn't see anything at the time, either, though evidently it was announced in a couple of places (again, see the archived discussion). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. There are additional archived discussions; see links (and add'l discussion) at Template talk:Infobox album#Removal of "reviews" field. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The purpose of Wikipedia, or any encyclopaedia, is to present information, it is not a repository for album reviews (see WP:NOTDIR). There was a very long discussion regarding removing reviews from the infobox - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 33#Reviews in infobox: scrap?. There was no need to involve all the admins of Wikipedia because this only falls under the scope of WikiProject Albums and doesn't affect other kinds of articles. --JD554 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this was thoroughly discussed, and I agree that the relocation is sound. To respond to your remark, "The reason people look at reviews is to make sure its a worthwhile album to buy": that may be so, but presenting a review is incidental to the purposes of an encyclopedia. It's entirely appropriate that the reviews no longer have such prominence in our articles. PL290 (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It was already mentioned, but requesting "all the administrators in wikipedia" to discuss review box placement isn't any different than requesting "all editors in wikipedia". Technically, when it comes to editing articles or discussing changes in templates and so forth, users with admin status are no different than editors without admin status. Admins hold no special privilege or "power" over any other editor in terms of article editing; they just have extra buttons so they can control article moves, deletions, and user abuses. I think it's explained at WP:ADMIN. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources of album track data

What's the view of albums project contributors on the types of sources needed to satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY for album track info? I know that independent sources are ordinarily deemed most reliable, but my sense is that there's little reason, as a general matter, to doubt the accuracy of liner notes as to things like track names, lengths, songwriters, etc. I wandered over here to ask b/c a stub I submitted for creation (on Maria Rita's Samba Meu) got flagged as needing more independent sources -- and I'm not at all clear where to look for an independent (much less more reliable than the liner notes) source of that kind of data. I'm wondering whether WP:BURO and WP:IAR are relevant here... Thoughts/suggestions? Many thanks!!! 67.127.53.126 (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Straight factual data such as writing & production credits, etc. Can be obtained from the liner notes, which are a primary source. You can use {{Cite album-notes}} to cite them. The 3rd-party sources should be used to source information on the album's background, recording, themes, critical reception, etc. Merely having the tracklist and track info isn't enough to build a well-rounded encyclopedia article. That's where your independent sources come in. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! Certainly agreed that a good article needs more -- but I figure a good article's likelier to grow from an existing stub than from nothing, and in the meantime, I know that when I'm looking for info on an album, finding even a track listing and credits is better than nothing at all. :-) 67.127.53.126 (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

hip hop genre(s)

Is there a discussion/consensus relating to hip hop regional/sub-genres in the infobox? There are frequent edits to hip hop album articles involving changes to genre(s). Dan56 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review request

Please see here Since there are no peer review volunteers who claim to specialize in album or pop music articles, I would like to request that someone(s) from WP:ALBUM take a look at this article and see if there are suggestions on how to improve it for FA status. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz discussion

I am having some opposition at this discussion, and apparantely one of them has threatened me w/blocking for the recent edits I made to Voodoo (D'Angelo album) and The Root concerning a video interview source and the Gearslutz source (only for Elevado's info on his own individual work). User:Jrod2 said "U cant use what Elevado said about Hunter at gearslutz or any other place period. It makes no difference if ya find another source; ya just cant add that type of content regarding LP". I would really appreciate some help. Dan56 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:CANVASS. Asking people to help you because you're having "opposition" at a discussion is a problem under the section on campaigning. WP:RSN is a neutral noticeboard, and conversations there should be permitted to evolve naturally to find consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesnt seem nuetral with the same two users ignoring comments in my favor with either unexplained claim like "Nope, gearslutz is definitely not usable for any purpose whatsoever" or intense vergiage. But I appreciate the response. Dan56 (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Infobox song and Infobox single

There is currently a TfD discussion regarding merging {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}}. Members of this project may wish to contribute to the discussion, which can be found here. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Eberhard Kranemann - avantgarde music

The wikipedia entry for this self released CD-R got me very interested, particularly as it contains 3 otherwise unavailable tracks by NEU! I would very much like to get hold of this somehow, does anyone know how to get it, or how to contact Eberhard Kranemann?

thanks, slim tim

---