Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Ultimate Guitar

I often run into this site when searching for album reviews. Even though it's listed as an unreliable source at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, it never seems that a consensus was ever established whether it's reliable or not, not even from the thread that was linked there. So, should this be clarified to mean only the user reviews are unreliable? I noticed several albums on there are reviewed by "UG Team", a group of staff users from the site. Kokoro20 (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been like a week since I posted this. Does anyone have any input? Kokoro20 (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, guess I missed this one. I agree that only staff-produced content should be acceptable. As a matter of fact, given the apparent controversy, I mostly use UG only when I'm struggling to find multiple good sources to build a decent reception section. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 04:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, unless I'm missing something, there was never an actual consensus as to whether or not Ultimate Guitar is reliable at all. That's why I asked if it's fine to still cite staff reviews like we already do with AllMusic, (which recently start to accept user reviews) Sputnikmusic, AbsolutePunk, among others. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's why I try not so use it as long as there are other good sources for reviews. If there is no consensus, then at least staff-produced content is acceptable until a discussion says otherwise. User-generated content remains unreliable, as with other sources. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 14:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this sounds okay – sort of reminds of Sputnikmusic and the situation we discussed regarding Rockfreaks. JG66 (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see this to now, but yes, I agree that we should handle it as we do Sputnikmusic. Some of their staff interviews in particular have been great sources of content for a number of articles I've worked on, so it would definitely be beneficial to use in some capacity. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone. I'll go ahead and add it to WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES now. Kokoro20 (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate article

User Bogglenose123 has for some reason taken it upon themselves to create Get Weird (album) when Get Weird already exists – it appears the text for the two versions is identical, and the sole difference between them is the addition of the alternative cover for the deluxe edition of the album. What's the correct solution for this... copying the extra album cover to Get Weird and then placing a redirect on the newly created article? (As there are no other articles titled Get Weird, the version with the "album" disambiguator should be the one to go.) And if this is the correct solution, is there somebody able to do this for me please, as redirects are not my strong point? 00:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Richard3120 (talk)

Done, redirected the duplicate article and added the extra album cover to the original one. Simply deleting the other page would be an option too, but given its title, it my be worth keeping. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 01:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Victor Lopes, I considered deletion as well, but looking at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, the suggestion is that a redirect is the better option if the article title is a plausible alternative one, which of course it is. Thanks for your help. Richard3120 (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"Boy Cried Wolf"

The usage and primary topic of Boy Cried Wolf is under discussion, see talk:Boy Cried Wolf (album) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 17, 2015

A summary of a Featured Article tagged by this wikiproject will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Wilson & Alroy?

Can some one point me to any discussion on Wilson & Alroy's record review site as a source or give the results of any discussion on if it is considered acceptable? Site is at: http://www.warr.org/cgi-bin/randompickpan2.cgi Thanks! Airproofing (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

According to their awards section, they were mentioned at EW and Bass Player Magazine. I don't think that's enough to make them notable. Erick (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they look like a couple of enthusiastic, but unpublished, music fans with their own blog, which isn't going to be enough to pass WP:RS. Richard3120 (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.Airproofing (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Spin Alternative Record Guide

FYI, since I've seen this book incorporated often for scores in the ratings template but credited erroneously as Spin, I created Spin Alternative Record Guide yesterday, so feel encouraged to use it and link it properly. Similar to The Rolling Stone Album Guide rather than Rolling Stone. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Goldmine magazine

I could've sworn I'd seen Goldmine in the list of sources in years gone by … Does anyone object to its inclusion? I've got a couple of old print issues in my collection: very thorough in its style for discographies, from what I can see; reporting seems dry and concise, much like Billboard of old. Contributors, going back decades, include Dave Thompson, Gillian G. Gaar and Harvey Kubernik. (Those are the ones I've heard of, anyway.) Some album reviews are available online, although it seems the star rating doesn't always appear there. Any thoughts? JG66 (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

a quick search through wikiblame suggests it was never listed there, but it seems fine to me, based on the journalists you've mentioned and the fact that it has a regular editorial staff. i don't know much about the magazine itself but published print sources are usually okay. by the way, (open to anyone!) what's the procedure for blogs associated with reliable sources, like those goldmine happens to have? Boomur [☎] 21:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to blog posts associated with reliable sources, I always just treat them like the rest of the site, just as long as they are written by the staff (per WP:NEWSBLOG). It would appear that the blogs there are written by staff, not regular users, so I don't see why not. Kokoro20 (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Yes, ditto Kokoro20's comment. Not that I'm too familiar with the site, but the few blog items I have come across there have been written by Thompson or Kubernik, or by staffers such as John Borack and Mike Greenblatt ("A longtime music journalist, Mike Greenblatt is a contributing editor with Goldmine magazine"). Worth noting also that some LA Times album reviews appear online under the newspaper's music blogs, no? JG66 (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Complete 20/20 Experience article

Interested editors are invited to discuss here. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Release dates

I have a question about release dates. A lot of albums are made available for online streaming a little while before the official commercial release. Should the date they're made available for streaming be counted as the release date or should it be the commercial release date? Littlecarmen (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Count on Me (EP)

Ongoing move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Peer review for List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States

I have opened a peer review for the article List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States. I am looking for input from anyone who has experience with working on list of best-selling albums or singles. Thanks! Erick (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"Peace Pipe"

The usage and topic of Peace Pipe is under discussion, see talk:Peace pipe (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"Stratospheric"

The usage, naming and primary topic of Stratospheric is under discussion, see talk:Stratospheric -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Help! (not the Beatles) Babys! (not a typo)

Live in America (The Babys album) was, according to its article, released in 2008 on some indie label. However, it says right at the top of the same article that it was originally released in 2001 by EMI as Valentine Babys. I was able to verify that. It would make sense to redo the article to reflect the original release date and title, and just add in the re-release info as is usual (and easy in this case, as nothing was added).

However, I haven't really moved heavily linked articles like this before, so I just wanted to run down a list and have someone look at it to make sure I didn't miss anything in my tasklist before I do it. It's in no particular order other than not moving the article until last.

1. Add cite for original release in album article
2. Update infobox to original release info
3. Add re-release info in new section to allow for anchor (no track change, so no new tracklist section needed)
4. Update discography infobox for previous and next albums around re-release
5. Update discography infobox for previous and next albums around original release
6. Update discography on main page
7. Move article to new title

Should that cover everything? MSJapan (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@MSJapan: I don't really understand why you need to move the article – why can't you just improve the current one? You only need to move an article if its title changes. Richard3120 (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Sorry, I'm an idiot, I've just seen what you said about the original title. However, I'm struggling to see the notability of this album – what references are going to be provided? Richard3120 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No idea - I figured it was notable because nobody else had ever deleted it in five years. However, as I haven't found any sources, I think I'll save the effort and prod it. MSJapan (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@MSJapan: Sorry, I wasn't trying to be mean, I appreciate you had good intentions to improve the article. But I suspect you were thinking of using Discogs as a main reference for release date, track listing, etc., and as that's user-generated content, it isn't allowable as a source under Wikipedia rules. So unless we can add some reviews of the album I'm not sure what we can say about it, and even the AllMusic entries for the album (both as Valentine Baby AND Live in America) have no rating and no text... if AllMusic has nothing, it's unlikely we'll be able to find much else. I see you have PROD'ed The Official Unofficial BABYS Album as well – to me this is an even more likely candidate for deletion, as it appears to be a 30-year-old collection of home demos by a single member of the band, not even featuring the rest of the group. I raised a thread here a few weeks ago pointing out that a large number of album articles in the Low-Importance category were possible candidates for deletion: I suspect their lack of notability has been pointed out before, but it's another thing to take the time and effort to take them to AfD.

As an aside, as a Brit I find it intriguing that this British band were reasonably successful in the US, and remain utterly unknown in their home country. Even after John Waite had a top ten hit in the UK with "Missing You", I would bet a large sum of money that virtually everybody in the UK still thinks he's American. Richard3120 (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I legitimately figured the article was fine as it was, and was just going to correct it. The reason it's still here is just an example of exactly what I did, which was assume it was OK and work on it rather than actually dig into it and make sure it actualy belongs here. I generally don't use discogs for RS, just verification, and it happened to be the first GHit I got.

I have found (speaking from the other side of the pond) that the stylistics of British and American acts in the same genres are very different, so I can see why it could appeal on one side and not the other. That happens a lot when otherwise big American artists can't sell a record for beans in the States, and then absolutely kill it in Japan. MSJapan (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, very true what you say about "rock" being very different between the US and UK: I live in Colombia most of the time, where pop and rock music is very much dictated by the US tastes, and here they are amazed that I don't know many "classic" rock tracks... the truth is that when punk and new wave arrived in the UK in 1976–77 it killed what little market there was for AOR. Bands like Kiss, Boston and Air Supply mean next to nothing in the UK, even to the older generation, while Journey needed more than a quarter of a century and an appearance in Glee to finally start shifting copies of "Don't Stop Believing". Iron Maiden and Def Leppard are far bigger in the rest of the world than they are at home, because they sound very "American" to our ears. And on the other hand, the punkier sounding American groups like Foo Fighters, White Stripes and Green Day shift serious amounts of records in the UK... one look at the UK charts in 2015 will tell you they are just about the ONLY guitar bands that still sell in the UK, and the reason why the last remaining weekly alternative music paper, the NME, has just thrown in the towel and become a lifestyle/entertainment magazine. Richard3120 (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Judging from dates, the group was also attempting to peak as musical tastes were shifting. MSJapan (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"Venting"

The usage and primary topic of Venting is under discussion, see talk:Venting (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Genres and User-Contributed Sources

Considering the nature of multiple opinions for genres combining into a single solution in many user-contributed sources for genres (such as RateYourMusic), why are they considered an "unreliable" source while newspapers featuring a single opinion from a so-called professional are?--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 18:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Subjective or not, all sources must follow WP:RS and not violate WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my concern at all.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 17:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to rephrase your question then. It looked like you were asking why were couldn't use user generated content to source something subjective like genre, in which the answer would be, because Wikipedia's very definition of "reliable" says that it can't be user-generated unless it comes from an expert of sorts. (And when they say expert, they mean someone on the level of like Gene Siskel, not a random guy who signed up for a Last FM account last week.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The opinions are collective, it's not just one opinion, otherwise, it would be just as reliable as the sources this silly website considers "reliable." I'm not referring to a random person's blog here. In this case, subjectivity and objectivity DOES make a difference and Wikipedia's rules should reflect such. You'd be surprised how many people who express some passion in music favor getting their information through sites like RateYourMusic over Wikipedia, because they ironically don't consider Wikipedia reliable for the very reason we're discussing now.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 17:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if its one user-generated voice or a hundred of them, they still violate WP:USERG. It's fundamentally outside of the scope of what Wikipedia cites or covers. Reviews are equally subjective, yet we don't cite user-reviews on places like MetaCritic either. If people want to know what the "general population" or "fans" thought, then then there's an endless availability of user reviews, blogs, social media sites, messageboards, comment sections, etc = that they can check out. But we don't document that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You're just pointing me to rules. You're not telling me WHY this is a rule. I'm not interested in talking about reviews considering reviews are absolutely meaningless to me. At least reviews are presented in a subjective manner on Wikipedia. That's not the case for genres.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 18:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Many of the reasons are listed at the policies I've listed, but beyond that, a major reason is because it'd be too easy to "play the system to get your way" if we allowed for these sorts of sources. An example: Let's say I'm a crazy person who thinks Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit", to my ears, sounds like East Coast Hip Hop. With the current system, if someone told me to find a source, I'd be out of luck, period. Now, if we allowed for user-generated content, I could go off-wiki, create five accounts elsewhere, and create entries that say that, and then go "Look! Look! Multiple sources say its true! Time to include it!". Now, obviously that particular example isn't likely, but sub in "a generic metal band" and "20 different metal denominations" and you can see how it would happen all over the place. Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You truly underestimate user-contributed sources. If you had gone to any Nirvana album over at RateYourMusic voting in East-Coast Hip-Hop, not only would you quickly get voted against, but there's a report feature that when reviewed, you wouldn't be allowed to vote genres ever again there. RateYourMusic also has a strict line dealing with multiple accounts, that you would end up losing all of them if the abuse is obvious. RateYourMusic trusts its users that you can classify artists by influences or "secondary genres." Some of the people I meant over there, elaborate on pitches, moods, undertones of music that in my opinion, have knowledge of music far superior to that of any mainstream music critic out there. I assure you that after spending time there, I found much less inaccuracies there than Wikipedia and I think many people outside Wikipedia would agree with me. Even sites like Encyclopaedia Metallum have a serious and motivated nature towards music despite being user-contributed.

As for your comment on the denominations of metal, that's where subjectivity truly is subjectivity. I consider Kamelot mainly a power metal band. Some people consider them progressive metal but I'm not going to flip off the handle over that because I acknowledge that Kamelot DOES have certain progressive elements. However, I completely trust that no band is going to be classified under 20 metal subgenres, but if it ever comes to this, what is hard to just simply call them a metal band? Frank Zappa's music is all over the place. He plays psychedelic rock, progressive rock, jam rock, jazz-fusion, but he's simply called a rock musician or even just a composer (even on Wikipedia). Even his genre table isn't cluttered with subgenre after subgenre.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 23:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This is why your system is broken, because you use multiple subgenres to describe music within a display that seems like it's presented in such a factual way, to the point it gets debated, but your dumb bureaucratic rules doesn't allow for that flexibility because a commoner's opinions are irrelevant DESPITE genres having a sensitive nature in subjectivity. It doesn't matter if it's 5 opinions, 50 opinions, because the music critic is always right. Right? In this case, is it so hard to just use less subjective, base genres to describe musicians? Just call Lady Gaga a pop artist, Paramore a rock band, but no, you have to call Paramore emo just because some bullshit critic said so.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 23:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)