Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Tom Hull

Hello. Is Tom Hull (his work, site, whatever) a reliable source? If so, how should he be mentioned in text and in the album reviews box (have seen his name show up recently). I confess that I only know him from his work on Christgau's site. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caro7200 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Caro7200: what work site and reliable to which end? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for signing...I believe Tom Hull is primarily a jazz critic. I know his name from Robert Christgau's site; I think he does site maintenance. He also has his own site. He perhaps writes/wrote for Downbeat and The Penguin Jazz Guide, but I've seen his name used in album review boxes, like Christgau's is. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't have a strong opinion about it. Just wondering if editors think he is "known enough" to be referenced by name in the same manner that, for example, Robert Christgau is, especially in the album reviews box. Caro7200 (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

He didn't contribute to The Penguin Jazz Guide. I can't find any contributions to DownBeat in the last 10 years either, although he is listed as someone who is part of their annual critics' poll. The main barrier is that Hull doesn't have his own Wikipedia article, so it's difficult to claim that he should be given special status. But I'd happily remove Christgau's usually perfunctory 'reviews' from the album ratings box... EddieHugh (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I see, thanks, I should have maybe linked to this page. He's been published in many RS, but perhaps his work shouldn't be referenced just to his name. For example. Caro7200 (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

As explained by the paragraph redirected from Tom Hull (critic), he was a longtime Village Voice critic, under Christgau's editorship in the '70s-'80s. His other journalistic credentials are mentioned in this RockCritics.com interview, which is cited in that paragraph. Christgau recommends him for jazz reviews. For jazz album articles that do not have the luxury of higher-profile publications to cite all 10 ratings for – which looks like most of them – his seem fine to me. And, @EddieHugh:, unfortunately the more verbose, pretentious, self-indulgent critical stylings of such publications like Pitchfork are usually not available to cite either. isento (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Another credential, in The New Rolling Stone Album Guide (2004): Tom Hull (T.H.) writes about philosophy and music on his websites TerminalZone.net, NotesOnEverydayLife.com, and TomHull.com, as well as for The Village Voice and Seattle Weekly. ([1]) isento (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

His article has been created --> Tom Hull (critic). isento (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Dua Lipa (album)

Dear all, will you be so kind to leave a comment at Talk:Dua Lipa (album)#RfC - "New Love" and "New Rules" single descriptions to help achieve consensus regarding the descriptions of two of the album singles. Many thanks. Cool Marc ✉ 19:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Can someone help with a Personnel section for Drag Is Magic + Vagina?

I know how to create a Personnel section from AllMusic, but I'm less confident about extracting the Metadata from a source like Spotify, Tidal, or the Apple Store. Would someone be willing to add a Personnel section to the Drag Is Magic, which I'm hoping to nominate for Good article status soon? Also, which credits go in the infobox? Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Ditto Vagina (album). Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Another believer, Spotify only includes writers and producers. I've checked Tidal and there's no credits for Drag is Magic (see here). It's the same for Vagina (see here). Drag albums tend to only be released digitally and to cut down on costs, there's no reason to produce full credits - this costs money and takes time. As many drag stars record as independent artists, self release or work with small labels unfortunately its often impossible to source anything detailed. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 15:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Lil-unique1, Thank you. I've nominated both articles for Good status so I just wanted to make sure no further crediting was required via Personnel sections or the infobox. Your help/feedback are appreciated. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion please

This artist's page is on my talk page. A new album, Canvas (Moya Brennan album), was added recently but it's a few years old. I didn't expect much and I was not surprised by how sparse it was. Could someone please take a quick look to determine if this should be redirected or not something similar? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not looking great. The second source is an interview promoting her following album, and Canvas is only mentioned in passing. I would have expected reviews to maybe appear in the quality British newspapers (The Times, Daily Telegraph, The Guardian) but I can't see anything there. It didn't get reviewed in the now-defunct fRoots, so the only other likely sources are Songlines and the monthly music magazines like Q and Mojo. But none of these last three have online archives, so it may have to be redirected until print versions can be checked. Richard3120 (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

PopMatters rating

Has PopMatters removed their ratings from their reviews recently. I go to a review page on PopMatters and can't seem to find the rating on the page--Majash2020 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been puzzled by the fact that sometimes an album has a rating on an aggregator like Metacritic, but then you go to the actual review on PopMatters, and there's no rating there. It's also the case that sometimes an earlier archived version of an album review has a rating, but the current page for the review doesn't. Richard3120 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Majash2020, That's really annoying when websites remove ratings off their reviews, Entertainment Weekly and Fact have this similar problem too. My advice is to find an archive page with the ratings still on it, like this. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick update on this; oddly enough albums do actually still seem to be rated by the site, but the ratings aren't being displayed visually for some reason – an album's rating can be found by viewing the source code of its review page (the numerical rating is enclosed within the tag <div class="custom-field-article-rating">). Not sure what the protocol would be for citing something like this, however. Holiday56 (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There might be an interest of discussion about UK certifications

Over at Template_talk:Certification_Table_Entry#UK_Sales_vs._Shipments. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

About Robert Christgau

What's the justification for using Robert Christgau--who is a person, not a publication--as a source for album ratings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.215.109 (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

He’s one of the biggest music critics in existence? (I’m personally not a fan, so don’t mistake this for a fanboy response or sometime. But it is what it is. He’s the Siskel and Ebert of music.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused by the premise of the question here: he's a reliable source. What does it matter if he's a person or a publication or a collective school of rock criticism or an angel? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not like he's only ever written for his own website/books – he started out at Creem during its early 1970s heyday, and then moved on to The Village Voice for many years. Like Serge, I'm not a great fan, but he has a proper background as a critic for highly regarded music publications. Richard3120 (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Justin, it’s hard to tell for sure, but based on experience, the IP probably got told that the great Youtuber “StinkyJohn6969420” with 100 subscribers got rejected on the grounds of WP:SPS but somehow Christgau “gets a free pass”? Its a false equivalency argument I’ve had with people plenty of times in the past. Happens a lot in the video game content area too. Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sergecross73, Not sure where you're from but the American impeached acting president I'm sure can do something about that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps if he gets retweeted on Twitter by Mr President, then he’ll be an RS. Sigh. Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sergecross73, Sorry for being obscure with my dumb joke. What I meant was maybe the acting president has nothing better to do with his time than intervene in how an online platform self-regulates in order to promote "fairness". (I didn't sleep last nite, so I'm a little wonky. :/) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No no, I knew what you meant. I was trying to make a tangential reference to it myself. Sergecross73 msg me 01:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Have been surprised by how many editors dislike Christgau. He's always been among my favorites, although his short Honorable Mention reviews are often obnoxious and not particularly informative. Having flashbacks to a decade plus ago when Piero partisans would bring up Christgau to justify all the Scaruffi nonsense...Caro7200 (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Caro7200: I think that's exactly it... his full-length reviews for Creem and The Village Voice were fine, but the one-liners on his website often do little to explain the rating he gives a record. Richard3120 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

His mini-blurb type "reviews" sometimes get the facts wrong and should only be used for pure opinions like "their best album in the 90s" to be safe. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

What facts are supposedly wrong? isento (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Didn't enjoy his memoir, either. Caro7200 (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Caro7200: Another editor Isento has been adding Christgau's reviews in articles and even got his articles in good article status, I think he knows about Christgau then everybody else. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I add them as well, always have. I like him a lot, aside from a portion of his HM reviews and his memoir. Christgau, Trouser Press, The Source, and Spin were the big four that introduced me to stuff in the '90s. Caro7200 (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I wrote an entire section explaining Christgau's rationale behind the grade format. This, and the idea of reducing an album to a single line, speaks for itself as to how he values said album. And in response to anyone who takes issue with the overall brevity of his reviews, I will quote David M. Handelman in The Harvard Crimson:

"He explains himself in a few sentences. There's none of the tortured delving into non existent souls. He trashes trash, and embraces fun, genius, and things between. I totally sympathize with the capsule summary format, and prefer it when writing. It's often ludicrous to spend any longer on an album, and how many people read beyond the good/bad label?"

isento (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about promo singles template

May be of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_30#Template:Promotional_singles. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Another RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles

Please add your comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Another RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Re-recorded albums

The issue is in regards to instances when a band re-records the material from an earlier album for a brand new release. My belief is that such material constitutes a completely separate album and thus a completely new article should be created, rather than merely having that material added to the previous album's article. A perfect example would be the 1983 album Suicidal Tendencies, which the band re-recorded as a new album called Still Cyco After All These Years several years later. The article in question right now is a 2009 album entitled Mike Tramp & The Rock 'N' Roll Circuz; the songs from that album were re-recorded this year and issued as a brand new album called Second Time Around. Rather than adding all the material regarding the new album to the original album's article, should a new article be created instead? SolarFlash^Discussion 23:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Happy Families and Happy Families Too... fall into this category as well. I guess they are entirely separate albums, with separate release dates, separate critical reviews, and separate charting... Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you have to handle it like one does when deciding whether or not to split off a single/song article from an album article - it all comes down to the sourcing and whether or not there’s anything additional to be said. If it’s a radical reworking and receives lots of reviews noting a difference in content and quality, yes, split it. If it’s a 1:1 recreation and it’s just a bunch of journalists noting that over and over again, then definitely not, just create a subsection and a redirect to said subsection. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that's probably the best option in this instance. Just from a quick google search I'm pretty sure notability is going to be an issue with a standalone article. I went ahead and created a redirect to the relevant subsection of the original album's article. Hopefully that'll keep everyone happy. Cheers. SolarFlash^Discussion 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps if the new material is released under a completely different title then yes a new article makes sense. However, if it was just re-released with a new cover or called something like Album Name (2020) then it should just be a section. There are some distinct differences - we have the same issue with re-releases too. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's one where the article combines... Caro7200 (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

With P.O.D., they did an acoustic "covers" album of select songs from their previous recordings. SoCal Sessions is, in my opinion, a studio album, and not a compilation because the material is new and not collected (with one or two new songs). This is a slightly different than what is being discussed here, but I wanted to raise it as similar issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Spin-off articles for (highly notable) reissues

With Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, I'm thinking a separate article might be in order for the 50th Anniversary Edition box sets – major commercial success, the surviving band members participated in promotion, and it didn't get overlooked by the critics either. A spin-off would be consistent with The Layla Sessions: 20th Anniversary Edition, The Pet Sounds Sessions and possibly others. The Pepper article is already fit to burst ... but thought it might be an idea to check here: Is this what we're doing, or are those rare examples something that shouldn't be in place, and therefore shouldn't be furthered with another spin-off? JG66 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would say reissues should be covered in the original article, but if the coverage grows too large then definitely separate it. We did that with OKNOTOK. Popcornfud (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks – I knew I'd seen one or two more. Perhaps a U2 album, not sure. JG66 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur. isento (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization of band names

I'm not sure WikiProject Musicians gets much traffic, so I am cross-posting this link here because the thread is regarding band names and will affect album and song articles... the issue is the capitalization or not of prepositions and articles in band names: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Capitalization of band names. Richard3120 (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Tom Hull for WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE list

Tom Hull (critic) (or rather his website, and by extension, blog) was brought up for discussion above, but inconclusively, which spurred me to create his article. I believe it now reflects his credentials convincingly enough. So I am formally proposing his addition to the reliable sources list, mainly for ratings/reviews - he has a focus on jazz albums. Thoughts? isento (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I brought this up earlier, so I want to acknowledge that I've read this. Do you suggest using Hull's grades in the album ratings box? For example: he gave Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain an A+, but I don't see any text associated with that grade--is there any? (Not that that album needs any more reviews...) Or just jazz reviews with text? Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

There is some commentary about the original album in his column reviewing Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain: LA's Desert Origins (from his "Recycled Goods" columns which appear to have been published for a minor publication, Static Multimedia). But, apart from album articles that are sufficient in reviews and scores from more notable reviewers, yes, I believe his grades should be allowed in ratings boxes – he has been a published critic, albeit a minor one. But choosing which review source is more notable than another is a matter of editorial discretion. I definitely recommend his reviews (with text) from his weekly blog, which focus on jazz albums, be considered reliable. isento (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I dont generally like adding self-published sources, but reading up on him in his article, if we allow it for anyone, he does seem like the type who would be the exception. Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any indication of editorial oversight at all. The only thing separating Tom Hull from a kid with a blog is some writing he did decades ago. SolarFlash^Discussion 17:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It would not be realistic for some kid with a blog to have written anything "decades ago", so that is not an apt comparison. And self-published blogs don't have editorial oversight, genius. But… According to WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Hull is one of 150 professional critics to be polled for DownBeat magazine's annual international critics poll, and he has voted in this poll each year since 2011. His last known published columns ran from 2003 to 2013, one in a webzine with editorial oversight (Static Multimedia) and another in prominent national newspaper (The Village Voice). He contributed artist entries to The New Rolling Stone Album Guide, whose presence in album articles here is nearly ubiquitous. His reviews have been recognized and validated by reliable sources - NPR Music, RockCritics.com, Robert Christgau, to name a few - DownBeat's publication of their poll also credits tomhull.com as the critic's associated publication. And yes, decades prior to all this, he wrote for the Voice during rock criticism's golden era. Now, does anyone have an informed opinion to offer? isento (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, pretty unbelievable that someone asking volunteers for input would take that tone. Some people never learn it seems. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

[Edit conflict with the above] Editorial oversight isn't always needed for blogs: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", WP:BLOGS. It probably comes down to personal judgement: looking at what they've produced, I think, 'Robert Christgau – music critic', 'Marc Myers – music critic', but 'Tom Hull – music critic'? I still haven't decided. I'm happy to use things that were published in a RS and are now reproduced on his website. The rest... I'll go with whatever the consensus here becomes. EddieHugh (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@isento: You are warm and charming as always. Your perpetual lack of civility sure isn't going to help the project. Grow the hell up, kid. SolarFlash^Discussion 23:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Your apparent absence of competence will do more to hurt the project. isento (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable - lack of the traditional reliable source requirements. (Editorial oversight, editorial policy, history fit fact checking, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Wow, wonder what changed your mind so quickly... isento (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Business Insider and Insider Inc.

Can these websites Business Insider and Insider Inc. be classified as unreliable sources or not? Because they are not on WP:ALBUMSOURCE, just wandering if we should start a discussion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The list generally focuses more on music-centric sites, so that may be why it’s not listed. Any reason you seem to be defaulting to unreliable? The names a bit generic, so I could be mistaken, but I believe they’re a professional business publication. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'm not saying these websites should be added in the list, I just wandering it is okay to use these websites as reliable sources. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliable is determined by purpose. I don't think those publications would be reliable for determining specific genre, but would be reliable for sales and marketing of an album. What were you thinking of using it for? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: In the article After Hours, an IP add the website Insider Inc. in the accolades section here. I have reverted that edit because I don't see the website being used in album-related articles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Good call. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Help w/ title of article: Now That's What I Call Drag Music...

I've working on this article about an album, but I'm finding different titles. Most of the confusion is around "Vol .1" vs. "Vol. 1". In short, I can't tell if ".1" is intentional and intended to be humorous, or if this is an error displayed by multiple outlets, including the Apple Store and Spotify. Can any editors help determine the best page title, or have editors encountered an error/confusing title like this before? Any thoughts at Talk:Now That's What I Call Drag Music, Vol. 1 are appreciated. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ones to Watch

Hi. Could Ones to Watch be added to the sources list? Its already referenced in many articles, and is independent and neutral as far as I'm aware. HeyitsBen ^talk 15:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it's probably reliable. SolarFlash^Discussion 01:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Lol, are you kidding? The website is published by Live Nation Entertainment – a corporate concert marketer and artist manager – and the reviews read like press releases. At the very least, not reliable as a review source. isento (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with Isento... it's certainly not independent, and its very title indicates that it promotes up and coming acts. It might be okay to use for factual information, such as tour dates, but I wouldn't consider any reviews that it posts to be impartial. Richard3120 (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)