Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ojorojo (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 14 January 2022 (→‎Singles from albums). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAlbums Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Overly long ranking lists

Looking at articles such as My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, Folklore, Invasion of Privacy, and RTJ4, they have overly long ranking lists. I suggest that we should have a rule about cut down the ranking lists at least to 20. Kinda like we only add ten reviews in the album ratings template. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree, although don't know about a number, and we wouldn't want to limit it to just the Big Daddies, like Rolling Stone, etc. But glancing through your examples, there seem to be some not-very-notable inclusions in the rankings. Caro7200 (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Caro7200: Adding a number probably not the answer but I think we should have the ranking lists limited, such as we limit the album reviews template. Plus it won't add extra weight to the article. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OMG. I don't know where I've been (other music articles, presumably) or when these things were added, but I've never seen them before. The closest I remember coming to such rankings is an article or two which mentioned (in prose) a position on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time from 2004 and their position in the 2010 re-ranking. These things smack (reek? stink?) of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, in addition to being just plain ugly to my subjective view. How do these help an article? Do people come to an article expecting to find this info? And what are some of these? RTJ4 (linked above) lists "No Ripcord" and "No Ripcord", which apparently are not notable enough to be linked to WP articles, and the XXL "ranking" doesn't have a ranking at all. My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy has high rankings, but on things like Genius' 100 Best Albums of the 2010s or The Best Albums in Pigeons & Planes History(?!). Invasion of Privacy is just plain hideous. Do we need to know the album was rated 3rd by the Yahoo! Entertainment staff, or 42nd in some PopMatters listicle? There's no discussion of these rankings (or rankers), we just list this random "information".
Unfortunately, we live in a time where content providers (online magazines, other websites, actual print publications) are all competing for clicks and know they can publish "the X greatest Y's (of Time Period T)" and with little editorial effort produce pages of clickable ad-space. Maybe not much different from magazines of old, but much too prolific these days to place so much weight on their "findings".
I can't offer a numeric boundary (although 20, proposed above, is fine as an upper limit), but I find these examples extreme. I think we need, at least, to exercize editorial judgment and prune lists like these, case-by-case, based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I know, that means lots of somewhat tedious or contentious discussions. I just can't believe somebody comes to Invasion of Privacy to find how it was ranked by San Diego CityBeat. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, agreed. And sometimes it's contextual too; it may be noteworthy to note that an up and coming band ranks 97th on the album of the year charts over at Vice. But it's hardly noteworthy for a Taylor Swift blockbuster album. But unfortunately, most editors lack that sort of insight and merely say "well someone added it somewhere else so it needs to be added here too". So it's hard to come up with an overall remedy. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Contextuality: good point. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think, can the lot. Those examples at My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, Invasion of Privacy (with Awards and nominations still to come there!) and RTJ4 are a joke – an embarrassment. It's as if we're indulging every website's clickbait approach and turning them into notable information, but is it? These rankings are self-sourced; they/the publishers are saying "this is important", and because it's a ranking or a score, editors seem to lap it up. It's reflective of a shallow approach to article writing, in my opinion. (I've said it before: this music project is turning the encyclopedia into trash, because editors are unable to discern between notable information and trash detail for the sake of it.)
It's also as if we've decided to have a new type of charts – critics charts – in addition to sales charts, and in addition to reviews and reviewer ratings in a critical reception. There's a good reason for having sales charts and a detailed critical reception: both areas have a long history in measuring aspects of a song or album's success and are recognised as such by no end of secondary sources. But does this mass annual rankings thing, particularly, have that sort of recognition?
Serge makes a good point about contextually – that it would be significant for an unknown artist to land in a few annual best-album rankings but hardly so for a really established act. But we'd need a secondary source to tell us it's significant, of course. JG66 (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could I just add a related topic here... the inclusion of mid-year or "so far this year" lists, which to me is taking "best of" lists to even more extreme levels. See the accolades for Set My Heart on Fire Immediately, for example. The next logical step from six-monthly "best of" lists is "best of the month"... and before I'm accused of exaggerating, both NME and Q in the UK used to publish their best albums of the last month in their printed versions, so it's entirely possible for an editor to dig up old copies of the magazines and say "Q rated the album as one of the ten best releases in March 2015". Richard3120 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*gag* *choke* *hurl* No fewer than three items in that table are articles titled "So Far". What utter rubbish. Maybe we need an article like Best clickbait article (so far) or Clickbait of the month? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some of these tables are getting out of hand. I vow that we at the very least remove all ones that are "so far...". We can keep them when they're first published as it wouldn't be another six months until formal "best-of" lists are written, and when those are published we remove all "so far..." ones. That way it's safe to say all of those "so far" ones are outdated. Imo that would be a good start. – zmbro (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zmbro: I agreed, the "so far" lists are especially unnecessary. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Popcornfud, Binksternet, Kyle Peake, Piotr Jr., and Ronherry: in this discussion if they already know. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't formed a clear-cut opinion over this, but I do want to mention that when Folklore was becoming ready for GA, the GA reviewer raised this very same argument as well. Upon his suggestion, I removed dozens of publications nobody generally knows, leaving only the prominent ones on the list. Ronherry (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice that accolades from publications are suitable in the body of articles, so I am in favour of keeping these. However, they should only be from reliable sources (though No Ripcord is reliable despite the lack of its own page) and unranked ones could do with removal in cases where most are ordered, also maybe there should be a cutoff of how high the rankings need to be for articles with tons like MBDTF? --K. Peake 06:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: As Zmbro pointed out earlier, the "so far" lists are outdated and unnecessary, so I suggest we should remove those first. I also think the unranked lists are not necessary either. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I forgot to comment on those lists sorry, yeah I believe those are unnecessary and so are unranked ones, unless these are literally the only rankings I believe they do not warrant inclusion. --K. Peake 07:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Several reliable and very well known music publications have never ranked their year-end albums in any sort of order... Q never did it, and I don't think Rolling Stone does either... they simply had a "top 50 best albums". So are you saying these should be removed? Richard3120 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Richard these should be kept. I mean look at 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. I think for the time being it's best to focus on the so far... lists and others from publications that a) aren't reliable or b) aren't notable. – zmbro (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree – these are the most obvious areas to get rid of first, and I don't think anyone can make a good case for keeping them. Richard3120 (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty seems excessive to me; ten would focus the article on the most important aspects. The excessive entries run into problems of indiscriminate information. If we standardize a template of ten, in the same manner as album review ratings, editors would more easily adapt. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for saying that, I was going to suggest something of the same idea. Whether it be 5, 10, whatever, there is some value in listing some highlights, if it's done right. Parity with the review boxes would at least help in enforcement I think, but whatever number we can all agree on. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ten is a better number than 20 for me, too. And I do like the prosey examples linked to by others here. That approach would work really well, IMO. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 07:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At Folklore, the list runs smack into WP:NOHIDE by hiding a large table at page load. NOHIDE says if you're hiding a big list, you should question whether the list should exist at all. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I noticed that. I think Dan56/Isento/Piotr Jr. did it well at Maxinquaye – the second paragraph of the "legacy" section mentions the year-end lists that the album topped, and the last paragraph talks about the established "best albums ever" lists that it has appeared in. Richard3120 (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I started following his lead from Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) when writing Bowie's articles (see Station to Station and Low). I think it's much better to have things in prose rather than one gigantic table no one really cares about. – zmbro (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Eddy's Accidental Evolution is great and hilarious, but so what that Aftermath "features" in it? What does that convey to a reader? I'm not a fan of 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die, but it's often just thrown into an article without any of the prose ... even if an album entry includes an entire page of prose ... I don't mean any of this sarcastically, although I know these comments often read that way. Caro7200 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet: I can go for only ten publications on the table, it's better then what I'm suggesting. Articles such as Folklore and Melodrama was the reason why I start this discussion in the first place. They have these overlong list of year-end or decade-end rankings, which is overkill and I don't know why nobody complain about this issue. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 26:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just echoing what several others have said, really, but I don't like tables of list rankings, as I feel it visually breaks the flow of the article, and then because in articles like those mentioned they're huge in their attempt for completeness. I'm all for the mention of lists if its in prose and that's how I go about it personally, although I tend to work on articles for albums with less of this sort of canonising. 'So Far' lists I think are maybe interesting if the relevant albums then don't go onto appear in the year-end ones.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Piotr Jr handled it well at Aftermath – Low looks pretty good too, from a cursory glance. This was something I meant to mention: imagine what pages for "classic" albums from the 1960s and '70s would look like if every single best-album list gets mentioned. I've worked on Beatles articles like Revolver and Sgt Pepper, where dozens of rankings get ignored because there's simply no room for them. (And I'm talking about best album of all time rankings ...) Also, in the sections at Revolver and Pepper, we cite secondary sources in most instances, as these tell us that a particular ranking is significant (rather than the publication telling us). JG66 (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the best album of all time rankings so far. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 07:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath is a pretty good example of rankings expressed in prose, but if we establish 10 as the maximum, it will need a very slight trimming. Binksternet (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, thank you for bringing up this issue. I fully support cutting the list to either 10 or 20 publications. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you all think the accolades list at Blackstar (album) needs to be trimmed down? I haven't looked at it in a while and it seems to match this convo as well. – zmbro (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's seems that everybody have agreed that the table should be cut down to ten publications, should this rule be added at WP:ALBUMSTYLE? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JG66: Should this change be added in WP:ALBUMSTYLE? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guess so, once the RfC is formally closed. JG66 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Can you close the RfC? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Album-related articles like Norman Fucking Rockwell!, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, Folklore, Damn, RTJ4, and Melodrama, others in general have these multiple year-end or decade-end lists. Should we cut down these tables to only ten publications, in the same manner as the album ratings template? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Define "newer." The Village Voice started "ranking" albums almost 50 years ago ... but I support the larger point. Caro7200 (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't necessarily think the amount of rankings should be cut down to 10, rather than that there should be a cut off point based upon how high they are. --K. Peake 19:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree they should be cut down, but I don't support the idea of limiting it to just 10 lists overall, whether that's in table or prose form. Some albums have a much wider reach than others because of the originating artist and get included on more lists as such, and I think it would be unfair to albums that don't receive the same to be limited to only 10 accolades because someone got trigger happy on a TSwift article. Like if a Spanish or French album really resonated and got included on 15 diff but really notable lists, we'd be allowed to only talk about 10 of those, and that could give the impression foreign language albums have less impact than English ones (and yes ik WP is under no obligation to list every accolade or list placement received). I think 20 would be a better number. It limits the excessive listing but still gives room. Or allow the year-end lists for a time and then replace them w decade-end lists when those come out, and just edit the prose to mention that the album made it on several year-end lists subsequent to its release. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Carlobunnie: I think ten is a necessary number, we only add ten reviews in the album ratings template, why not the tables? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:C'mon, C'mon#Requested move 26 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:C'mon, C'mon#Requested move 26 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tell All Your Friends

Greetings colleagues, I hope you all had a wonderful holiday. I'm here to tell all my friends (ba dum tss) about an open Featured Article Candidacy for this article. It can be found here. I appreciate all comments and concerns! dannymusiceditor oops 20:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More opinions needed at Red Hot Chili Peppers

About how much coverage (so to speak) to give their nude performances. See the talk page at the article. Popcornfud (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Collection

I am confused about the numbering scheme that Columbia Records used on this series of box sets. Either I'm missing a ton of entries in the series or they just used a zillion different catalog numbers? I would have expected a more ordered sequence. Thoughts? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genres sourced from YouTube

I have a few problems with This Is Not the End (Manafest album). The most recent is a fan who has insisted on adding two genres to the infobox because the artist stated them in the infobox. I would usually revert, but the editor refused to accept RS or WP:GWAR and kept edit warring to get them in. The final source is the problem.

As I looked over the sources to see if there were any reviews to rely on, I found that most of it is sourced to self-published YouTube videos or Apple Music links that show little more than the music exists, and one press release. Only two secondary source exists: one is a blog and Indie Vision Music has no author. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the notability of the entire article should be at question. The only WP:RSMUSIC source that I can find covering it is Jesus Freak Hideout which wouldn't be enough for me to make an article for it. Not sure what the actual question is meant to be here, but my judgment is this article is pure WP:FANCRUFT and need not be kept (Unless more sources can be found that I missed, of course). QuietHere (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Unsourced genre concerns are small beans when the article itself ought to be canned. Tkbrett (✉) 14:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Is Not the End (Manafest album). Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tell All Your Friends/archive1

Bumping this discussion because the original one got buried in about four hours. This article doesn't have many involved WikiProjects, so I am once again asking for support, or at least reviews, of the nomination. I was notified that it may be archived soon due to lack of participation. dannymusiceditor oops 23:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Singles from albums

  • Singles released 10 years earlier and added as bonus tracks to new album - should they be classified in album infobox as singles? Same question if the name of new album should be added as album in singles section to discrograhy? It's hard to say because there are small differences not credited and 10 years is a long time so it just looks like there is no connection between them.
  • The other case would be if new hit single is added as track to old album while new album is ahead. I would say the second album would be the "main" one but technically it was released on earlier album... Eurohunter (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is based on how is the single "really" promoting certain album so I think everyone can notice what single is promotiong which album even if they are released before or after album release and it doesn't matter if they were released on other albums before or after. Eurohunter (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles covers several of the cases you mention here, with the general guidance that the infobox should only include singles "that were released as singles during the marketing and promotion of the album." A helpful example is the page for Jeff Buckley's album Grace. A few months ago, I removed two singles from its infobox because they were released far after the original release and independent of its original marketing campaign. One of those, "Forget Her", was actually released to help promote the tenth anniversary version of the album – the "Legacy Edition" – which had its own infobox further down in the page. It therefore made more sense to include the single release of "Forget Her" within the Legacy Edition's infobox, rather than the infobox at the top of the album's page. In more ambiguous cases, it's best to discuss it at the album's talk page. Tkbrett (✉) 20:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "The Things That Dreams Are Made Of" from the Human League's Dare would also apply to this conversation too. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: I've noticed a lot of single release dates being added to infoboxes with Hung Medien chart links as sources. Why should Dutch, Australian, etc. charts have details about singles released in the US? It looks like info from its forum pages or discogs, 45cat, and secondhandsongs. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums&oldid=1065634677"