== RFC about album years in navigation templates ==
== RFC about album years in navigation templates ==
{{archive top|result=There is no consensus. If I may try to summarize: there are valid arguments on both sides--on the one hand, years add clutter; on the other, years add information. As editors point out, templates could be split if they get too confusing. On the personal tip, as an admin, I'd suggest that these could be discussed individually (it's not like their infoboxes...), and as a Wikipedia editor, I find that "arbitrarily forcing one way and disallowing the other" is not in the spirit of our beautiful project. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)}}
{{rfc|media|rfcid=9E632C1}}
Should the year of release of an album be placed in navigation templates ([[WP:NAV]]) for bands and musicians.
Should the year of release of an album be placed in navigation templates ([[WP:NAV]]) for bands and musicians.
Line 166:
Line 166:
::::: [[User:Sergecross73|Sergecross73]]: Uhhhh ... I have no idea how you have reached such a ''non sequitur'' of a conclusion—notice how I ''linked to the Mos'' (or where do you think [[MOS:RETAIN]] points to?) Notice how the MoS does ''not'' enforce a uniform ENGVAR, date formats, use of infoboxes, grammatical prescriptions, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.? Overriding editorial decisions such as by forcing or disallowing these dates is the sort of thing the MoS ''does not do''. Just how familiar are ''you'' with the MoS? [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly "JFC" Turkey]] <span style="color: Red;">🍁</span> [[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 23:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
::::: [[User:Sergecross73|Sergecross73]]: Uhhhh ... I have no idea how you have reached such a ''non sequitur'' of a conclusion—notice how I ''linked to the Mos'' (or where do you think [[MOS:RETAIN]] points to?) Notice how the MoS does ''not'' enforce a uniform ENGVAR, date formats, use of infoboxes, grammatical prescriptions, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.? Overriding editorial decisions such as by forcing or disallowing these dates is the sort of thing the MoS ''does not do''. Just how familiar are ''you'' with the MoS? [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly "JFC" Turkey]] <span style="color: Red;">🍁</span> [[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 23:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::I was responding to your comments about "forcing" or "disallowing" editors from writing or displaying things certain ways - the point being that we have discussions, policies, and guidelines that "force" or "disallow" all the time, so your whining about that is invalid. Wasn't referring to your RETAIN comment, so chill out. That aside, your comments about RETAIN we're actually a little more helpful than the rest of what you've said so far. Most templates don't include years, so RETAIN would largely keep the years out, which is where I fell on my stances. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 00:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::I was responding to your comments about "forcing" or "disallowing" editors from writing or displaying things certain ways - the point being that we have discussions, policies, and guidelines that "force" or "disallow" all the time, so your whining about that is invalid. Wasn't referring to your RETAIN comment, so chill out. That aside, your comments about RETAIN we're actually a little more helpful than the rest of what you've said so far. Most templates don't include years, so RETAIN would largely keep the years out, which is where I fell on my stances. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 00:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
== Request For Comment about ranking charts on music articles ==
== Request For Comment about ranking charts on music articles ==
This wikiproject oversees all active music projects: see Music Projects and WikiProject Council for a table and a list. Posts about specific topics (e.g. albums, composers, jazz, rock or whatever) should be made to the relevant project - not here! For notices, please see the Music Noticeboard.
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Using citations for track listings on albums
Jax 0677 (talk·contribs) had placed a [citation needed] on This Christmas: Winter Is Coming. However, I have not usually seen a citation for a track listing unless the album is yet to be released, or in cases where a dispute exists. For instance, Room to Breathe (Reba McEntire album) has a separate citation for one song because the Allmusic listing has an erroneous credit.
Long story short: do track listings generally need citations? Does Real Good Time need the citations it has in its track listing? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there are different points of view on this, but I feel that the album cover or label itself can serve as a reliable source of information, provided that the album is specified with the same sort of detail that we expect when documenting other media such as books or magazines. And so, if the name of the album, the record label, the catalog number and the year of release are all set forth, I don't see why that wouldn't be sufficient for sourcing purposes. And if the album has a Library of Congress or OCLC number (some of them do!), then so much the better.
To answer your question directly, that does seem to be a ridiculous number of citations for Real Good Time. Then again, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to get the catalog number for the album, if only to make your case for fewer citations even stronger. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The number of citations and their placement on that article is totally absurd. There is no need to provide exhaustive third-party citations for basic catalog data that appears, e.g., on the back covers of albums or the title pages of books, unless it is demonstrably incorrect or has been contested in the literature. Chubbles (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm late to the party here, but to chime in, in case this comes up again down the line, sources generally aren't required for track listings of albums/EPs/singles that are already released. If there's a particular doubt in mind (alternate track listings, hidden track names, etc) then sure, but otherwise, but without a specific concern, no, it should not need a citation needed tag. Sergecross73msg me 13:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE Michael Jackson's cultural impact is enormous and is the subject of numerous books, journal papers, articles, and scholars etc thus subarticles make sense. This is a prima facie encyclopedic topic with references from reliable sources. Like User:A Train said on afd .this is Beyond the encyclopedic merits, there are technical guideline reasons for encouraging this fork: the prose weight Michael Jackson article (currently having a FA status) is approximately 52 KB+ which, as it happens, is 2 KB heavier than the size Wikipedia's guidelines suggest is WP:TOOBIG and should be forked . And this is not answer to Cultural impact of Elvis. If you call this page is a answer to elvis what will you call to this page Cultural impact of Madonna ?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the main FA article on Michael Jackson is not a fancruft, it has also defined the controversies, criticism that were part of Jackson's career. As for Cultural impact of Madonna, this article was created 2 years ago, it is surely inspired by Cultural impact of Elvis Presley, but it has a number of reliable sources and probably because MJ and Madonna achieved their global fame during the same time period as solo artist. Maybe Madonna is the most influential female artist and she has created a revolution for female artists. We can't really say the same for MJ, because there were many highly popular male artists before him and also the negative media coverage surrounding his career. MJ's influence is best described as influence on individuals, and you have List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson for detailing that. Excelse (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Elvis Presley was a huge phenomenon in America & parts of Europe, but Michael Jackson was more Globally successful and influential than him outside of North America.Even In no english speaking Asian countries too. Also, Jackson sold more original STUDIO albums - with fewer releases. The only reason Elvis is over Jackson in pure album sales is due to the heavy amount of GREATEST HITS COMPILATION releases, that has been released over a 40 year period, AFTER his death. MJ also revolutionized the music video art form (which is a MASSIVE part of pop culture today). He was the first black artist to be played in HEAVY rotation on MTV (giving them their HIGHEST RATED VIDEO PREMIERS EVER). Paving the way for all the black and non-black pop male/female stars that have come after him.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
History disagrees with you because since 1950s, every country had the same revolution that America had, led by Elvis. MJ has less recordings, but beats both Madonna and Elvis when it comes to overall releases. If we go by your logic then no one is more influential than Ariana Grande, Selena Gomez, etc. today, because you are measuring the influence or cultural impact by calculating the amount of crowd that cheers for them. Excelse (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of lol. Elvis didn't start that for you may be yes i know you have been blocked by editing elvis related pages. Music has been selling in the millions long before Elvis came along. I mean, Bing Crosby's song "White Christmas" sold a staggering 50 million singles globally - which was released before Elvis was even famous. Not to mention the millions of records Frank Sinatra and a plethora of other musicians before Elvis's time. And Michael Jackson literally dominated EVERY MARKET music was sold. From Asia too North American too Europe too Africa. Being the first true global African American pop star of his magnitude with R&B-Funk-Pop music. Jackson changed the game with videos, how albums were marketed and sold, how black artists were distributed throughout the world. Jackson set all time records and broke them as a BLACK entertainer - which was much harder to do in his time. His success was NEVER seen before. Thriller era alone was THE highest peak for ANY artist in history. Bringing Sony well over 2 billion dollars in revenue, killing the charts like never before (globally and state-wise), breaking every record and setting news ones (that STILL haven't been broken yet), paving the way for so many pop stars (especially BLACK ones) for GLOBAL international success outside of America. Jackson even broke attendance records throughout EVERY country he toured - selling out their BIGGEST stadiums/parks every time he toured. He would even sell out stadiums in some of the most poorest parks of Europe/Asia. Michael's impact is totally unmatched in-terms of a GLOBAL appeal. He dominated EVERY market known to the music industry, set all time records (that still stands today & haven't been beaten yet), set trends, was a trailblazer, was an inspiration to almost EVERY act that followed (especially in popular music), was a fashion icon in pop, revolutionized the music art form, dominated the touring business (mind you before the touring industry got huge during the 2000's - Jackson was already grossing 100+ million dollars per tour back when tickets were still relatively cheap), breaking and settling ALL time attendance records ALL OVER THE WORLD. Please, Michael Jackson influence & impact is untouchable globally. Only one that can be compared is MADONNA. That's it.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about blocks, you were blocked for socking very recently and had to beg many editors across wikimedia projects to help you out with getting unblocked.[[3][4] Keep demonstrating your WP:CIR, no one cares about your meaningless peanut gallery here, see WP:FORUM. Excelse (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The topic does not interest me at all. However, stick to the content, not the contributor. You're implying that the editor's comments are immaterial because of previous blocks. That's nonsense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to his comment "i know you have been blocked", I should've instead cited WP:POT. Excelse (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can't rereference Cultural impact of Madonna or Elvis, Akhiljaxxxn, 'cause the main articles are different. The write form and many factors. Don't justify or reference an article with other please.
This Jackson's article looks with many deficients. I would like to say delete 'cause looks doesn't add any new content that Michael Jackson or others articles added. Or keep if looks that really added an efficient content. Good luck Chrishonduras(Diskussion) 20:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose deleting the Cultural impact of MJ article. His influence was enormous and wide-ranging, way outside popular music, and it simply can't be covered sufficiently in a biographical article. The problem is that Cultural impact has not been expanded – that is, the basic overview provided at Michael Jackson hasn't been fleshed out with detailed commentary, which surely exists.
If anything, it's the List of artists influenced by MJ piece that's redundant. In my opinion, Artists influenced should be incorporated into Cultural impact of MJ, and the latter should carry a banner urging editors to expand the article. But Akhiljaxxn, why don't you dedicate yourself to coins the subject justice? There are some good sources at Cultural impact, more (I imagine) at Michael Jackson. JG66 (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your lousy attempt to WP:HOUND me by opposing my policy-based rational (supported by 2 concerned editors), after basing your comment on your baseless imagination and editing this section after seeing my edits here was totally uncalled for. You couldn't even grasp that we are talking about redirecting, not deleting and neither you could grasp that we are not disputing the cultural impact of MJ. List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson is an accurate article, followed by List of artists influenced by Selena, List of artists influenced by Janet Jackson and others. Indeed you can only "imagine", but in real there are not enough sources available for writing about "cultural impact" that would allow separate article like Johnpacklambert had said too. All of us have already tried hard but nothing shows up except hysteria over his death which was 8-9 years ago! You would want to think that articles like Cultural impact of David Bowie, Cultural impact of Chuck Berry, Cultural impact of Prince could be created as well, by covering hysteria over death but we are not going to do it. If you really have problems with Michael Jackson (an FA) article, then raise your concerns on Talk:Michael Jackson and get consensus for moving the content from there. This article violates WP:POVFORK, WP:COPYRIGHTS, some of the copyright violation was removed yesterday[5] and there are three redundant off-topic quotes that should be removed, also per WP:QUOTEFARM, and after that there would be nothing left except the selective POV forking from the main FA article. Excelse (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HOUND? Don't flatter yourself. And get a grip, you wikilawyering idiot – contribute here for real instead of bludgeoning people with the same old pointy argument. JG66 (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I was just refuting your redundant comment. Next time make sure you have enough competence before making WP:ILIKEIT garbage argument. Excelse (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the page should be put through a new AfD. I can see arguments all over the place, and I think having it held in a regular way there would be most helpful. Lots of people have their cultural impact studied, this does not mean we have to have seperate articles on cultural impact for all of them. Another issue, is that while he certainly moved beyond it, Jackson being part of the Jackson 5 and not always the biggest part of his own act makes his cultural impact different. At least from some of us, the songs by Jackson we listen to the most come from his Jackson 5 days. This is not a question of is his cultural impact notable, but is there a reason to split the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I might be tempted to side with the existence of this article if the claims of MJ's cultural impact have been widely discussed and demonstrated, but Akhiljaxxn, you might want to tone down some of the hyperbole, because at the moment it just sounds like a promotional press release from Sony Records, and many of your claims can't be backed up by evidence. For example, "he literally dominated every market music was sold"... well, no, he literally didn't - even at his peak he certainly never outsold Johnny Halliday in France, and popular though he was in South America, he didn't sell as many records as the Latin music stars. And how did Jackson "revolutionize" the music video? OK, so he made a 30-minute film for "Thriller" that broke viewing figures all over the world for its premiere. But that's not a game-changer unless it was the first long-form music video with a storyline (it wasn't) or that all subsequent videos were made the same way (they weren't). That Jackson had such a global impact at the time that the first showing of his video was a noteworthy EVENT is notable enough, and worthy of being included in a discussion about his cultural impact. But as far as revolutionizing the artform goes, I think it was pretty minimal, and it's going to be difficult to prove such a claim. Richard3120 (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is considerable impact of every album that has been no.1 to no. 10. Akhiljaxxn had forked some content from the wikipedia page of They Don't Care About Us to this article, but it was a bad move because such material (influence of albums) is already covered on the main album articles. Looking by Akhiljaxxn's remarks here, it is more clear that he cannot really write neutrally about Jackson. Excelse (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Richard3120 I never said Jackson outsold everyone in their home country.he is literally always in the top 5 best selling international selling acts in music markets around the globe. Deflection at it's finest and complete lazy tactic to ignore the facts. And MJ DID in fact revolutionized the video art form for pop acts indefinitely. Thriller paved the way for other African-American artists to achieve mainstream recognition. thriller music video was the first long-form music video with a complex storyline dance routine special effects and famous cameo appearances .Thats why In 2009, the video was inducted into the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress, the first music video to ever receive this honor, for being "culturally, historically or aesthetically" significant.He's literally the most successful and cited as influence video artist in popular music.Thats why MTV giving video vanguard award on his name.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you said he "dominated" music markets around the world... now you're saying "within the top five", that's not domination. And no, he literally isn't in the top five in every music market around the world, so it's not deflection, I'm just pointing out your "facts" aren't true.
I agreed with almost everything you say about Jackson and music videos - yes, he was instrumental in getting black acts played on MTV. Yes, "Thriller" was recognized for being culturally or historically significant. But none of that is the same as saying he revolutionized the artform - that's WP:OR. That's why I said if you tone down the hyperbole I think you actually have a good case and enough examples to demonstrate his cultural significance. Richard3120 (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uncleared/Illegal Samples
Should there be a change in regards to citing uncleared and unmarked samples that exists in songs? For example, the album Madvillain is a highly referenced album in terms of the use of samples in hip hop, but has no listing of these samples since they were not credited, despite specific samples being proven by a multitude of websites (WhoSampled is a very moderated listing of music samples, cleared and uncleared) and figureheads. Will it ever be allowed to list uncleared, but proven, samples? Making a major part of songs, it seems necessary to have a record of which samples were used in the making. TomasTomasTomas (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no WP:RS that supports what the samples are, then we can not make any statements about the sample. That would go against WP:NOR. I suppose it could be argued that the samples are "clear" but WP:V states "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." That doesn't mean a source must be provided, but if we don't supply sources, any challenge is justifiable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would a listing on site such as whosampled.com be considered a source? As the RS article states, "Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." which fits the description of WhoSampled. TomasTomasTomas (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shame, doesn't seem like there's any other database for this. Guess that piece of crucial info would be left out unless it's on another site :/ TomasTomasTomas (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it were both crucial and important, it would be officially recorded somewhere. If it's just a curiosity or trivia, fans will find a way to uncover it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs)
Fans did uncover the samples, on those sites. The issue is "fans" aren't the Wiki's definition of a source, like discussed above.TomasTomasTomas (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Walter is correct, fansites and wikis fail WP:USERG and cannot be used on Wikipedia. They're too easily altered - one could make an account there, add erroneous info there, and then use it as a source over here. You'd need something like those listed at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, or a statement directly from their artist themselves, or it can't be added here. Sergecross73msg me 15:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RFC about band photos in genre articles
The RfC brings up some interesting points for discussion, but there is an overwhelming "no" here, even though at least one editor rightfully notices that this RfC possibly states things too categorically. Another reasonable point is that a certain esthetic can be exemplified by an image, but as others have noted this is likely to lead to edit warring and interminable discussions on who best exemplifies what. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In Wikipedia articles related to general music genre, is it appropriate to put a photo of a specific band in the genre's infobox?
Hypothetical example, would it be acceptable to go to the Pop punk article and insert a photo of Blink 182 in the infobox at the top of the article. (This example assumes that they are widely regarded by sources to be pop punk, which they are. The question is not about genre-warring, but about infobox image use.) Sergecross73msg me 17:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Survey
No - This causes an WP:UNDUE issue. Placing any one band so upfront in the infobox gives undue weight towards that particular band when the articles scope is an entire genre of music. Additionally, such a precedent would almost certainly lead to any number of disputes over which bands to use for the infobox. ("Metalica is more representative of metal! No, Slayer is! 50 Cent is the best rapper! No, Kanye West is". These sorts of issues would be commonplace.) Sergecross73msg me 17:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No - For above, and also a image would be hardly representative of a genre musically sepaking. For a image to be fit to be placed into the infobox, it must be fully representative of the genre's social and cultural peculiarities, and these characteristics must be obvious and easy to spot at first sight, to be as concise as possible to fully adress WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Such image would be hard to find and choose, a kinda problematic situation. ABC paulista (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No - per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE an infobox should "summarize key facts that appear in the article"... a photo of Blink 182 doesn't summarize a description of their music, and I can't tell what the genre sounds like just from seeing a picture of a band on stage with guitars and drums. If pictures of a genre's key exponents must be included, they should be within the article body. Richard3120 (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No An infobox is a summary of the article and should be 250% neutral. The Bannertalk 20:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No - By its very nature, it is difficult if not impossible to represent a musical genre with a visual image. Images can be used to illustrate aspects of a musical genre, such as psychedelic light shows or punk clothing, but those should be in the body of the article next to the appropriate prose, not in the infobox.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No – WP:UNDUE. And besides, there's already an inherent subjectivity when it comes to music genre articles – say, when some sources identify an act or album as psychedelic rock, but others give psychedelic pop, acid rock, etc, so highlighting one particular act in any genre can be problematic. Progressive rock is another article where an image appears, btw. JG66 (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes – I think that it would be beneficial if most music genre article infoboxes included images to give a quick introductory illustration of each genre's aesthetic. There is a "musical" and a "cultural" side to every genre and these two are closely linked; cultural context shapes sound and vice-versa. A genre's aesthetic manifests sonically, but it also manifests visually in art, clothes, objects, places etc. Therefore, an infobox image can give an immediate idea of the genre's orientation. For example, for a reader who has never been to a heavy metal event, its dark and bobmastic style should be immediately illustrated.
As concerns the major arguments against, User:ABC paulista has argued strongly that to serve its purpose, the image selected would have to present the most common visual characteristics of the genre in a very clear and striking way; it would have to be held to a very high standard. Such an image may be impossible to find or agree on, and in that case it is better to exclude it. I have come to be generally persuaded to this but I believe that the adequacy of an image as a general illustrator can be discussed on a case-to-case basis. We could use a standardised voting system wherein a user would nominate an image on the article's talk page, notify the relevant wikiprojects, and add the image IF support for it outweighs opposition.
Furthermore, multiple users have contended that selecting any single artist/event for the spotlight of the infobox is giving WP:undue weight to it over others. My counter-argument would be that the benefits of an adequate image as a quick illustration outweighs its potential detriment of over-emphasis. The image caption can be used to highlight the "illustratory" aspect of the image; rather than saying "X count among the most succesful heavy metal bands" it can go along the lines of "X showcasing typical heavy metal fashion at a 1980 concert". (Such use of caption can also help with resolving the first issue of clear illustration: images should be nominated and agreed on WITH captions.) The band and/or event selected should definitely count among the most prominent in the genre and this may be a point of endless debate. However, I think a simple standard to go by would be to choose a band that is mentioned in the lead. Such a mention already gives much prominence to several bands, and any reader who looks at the infobox is also likely to browse through the lead, so it will overall be clear to them that the image does not represent "the most significant metal band" etc. but merely one band which academic consensus places among the most significant and which is used for illustration. In the example of metal, I think Judas Priest would be a good fit.
All in all, consider that most genre articles already highlight some bands in the lead and others in images throughout the text. To choose an infobox image is no different from this; it's not a whole different level of "cherry-picking". I hold that the benefits of quick aesthetic introduction make it well worth the effort of carefully selecting an image which users can agree to be adequately illustrative and representative. Achieving such consensus may indeed prove difficult or impossible in some cases; but that does not mean we should completely rule it out as an option in ALL cases.--MASHAUNIX 08:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No - it just would welcome long-term edit warring without any real benefit. And MASHAUNIX: while you bring up some good points, it's still 100% subjective, and things that are will always be an issue on Wikipedia. ~ Dissident93(talk) 09:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, this would be wp:Undue. There are always many important bands labelled with a genre. For the infobox of punk, which one should we choose to include: the Pistols, the Ramones, the Clash? Some would even stand for the seminal proto-punk the Stooges. Woovee (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, to use a photo of a specific band for a music genre could cause unnecessary debate and edit warring WP:Undue. Netherzone (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am assuming that the sentiments expressed here are the same regardless of whether we're talking about a band, strictly, or a solo musical artist. Given that the consensus here is very strong, I removed photos from the infoboxes of ragtime (Scott Joplin), jazz (Louis Armstrong), and soul music (Solomon Burke). I also noticed that funk (James Brown) and reggae (Bob Marley) have artists in the infobox. We are prepared to defend the consistent application of the reasoning here for any genre, even ones in which a single artist actually retains the lion's share of the critical or popular imagination about that genre? (I believe so, but I wanted to be sure the consensus had thought through the implications of the decision being made here thoroughly; Mashaunix has challenged on this point.) Chubbles (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. Looking through all the details of the stances, there's no reason to think it should be any different whether it be a band, group, or singular person. The consensus is clear that one certain act should not represent the entirety of a genre in something as upfront in the article as the infobox. Sergecross73msg me 18:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Malformed RFC & question A "no" would interpreted as "always inappropriate", which is a vast overreach for both a statement (a categorical statement about article content) and a project. Certainly there way be some genre or genre/movement where on artist is recognized as iconic or even founder, even if this is not normally the case. North8000 (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the discussion is strictly about infobox images. A image can still be placed prominently in the first paragraph of a history section if they're some sort of verified founder or pioneer of a genre. That's what I'd recommend for the types of scenarios you're talking about. Sergecross73msg me 01:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, even in cases where one artist is iconic or is a singular founder, the fact that we now refer to the genre as a genre - that is, a broad, high-level categorization of musical styles - inherently makes the article content about a multitude of musical contributions. That, I think, makes the use of a single performer's image undue in the infobox (though it is entirely reasonable for that artist's image to be placed prominently and early in the article body). In the example of Contemporary folk music, I don't see why Pete Seeger is prioritized over Woody Guthrie, Odetta, Bob Dylan, The Fairport Convention, or Mumford & Sons. Chubbles (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am more concerned about a good process than the end result. And so my notes here are about doing damage to that process. If a discussion at the article ended up as that result I would be fine with it. Particularly if it ended up with replacing it with another nice picture. In that discussion I would make several arguments that this case goes far beyond selection of an artist. A few of them would be often cited as the "granddaddy" of the movement, and prominence in it in a wide range of respects outside of being a performer. For example having mentored and help give a start to Dylan, one of the giants that you mentioned. My notes here were about doing damage to that process by the RFC being malformed and overreaching. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An additional overreach item is tromping over the individual musical genre projects......there's not even a notice of this discussion there. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your "overeach" concerns at all. This has been running for 3 weeks with 10+ experienced participants and not a single concern about it. It's a simple yes or no question related to music articles, present neutrally on the Music WikiProject, written on behalf of 2 editors who asked me to do so because they were too busy or inexperienced to do it themselves. I didn't even know there was a WikiProject for music genre. If there is, of course they can be notified. I can't imagine it would change the outcome much, as most of the music WikiProjects aren't terribly active right now, and many of the editors I see editing music articles regularly on Wikipedia who are likely to participate in this sort of thing are part of the 10+ who have already commented. Please note that the WP:SONGS and× WP:ALBUMS were also notified, so this isn't some little localized discussion either. I notified all the music WikiProjects that came to mind, and tagged with with the music related RFC tag. Sergecross73msg me 22:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All I've found is Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force, but you seem to be talking about going around to each WikiProject for each genre and notifying them. Which again, is fine to be done if you feel it necessary, it's just that, in asking the question, I did not anticipate an answer differing between genre of music. I didn't (still don't) see someone thinking it would be okay for one genre but not another. It's more of a discussion of Wikipedia policy in relation to music genre on a whole. Sergecross73msg me 23:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, I don't think the RfC here is subverting the process, though I agree that process is important. This is probably the best centralized location for the discussion; perhaps we can leave it open a bit longer if wider notice should be posted. Chubbles (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "subverting the process" , by process, I didn't mean RFC processes, I meant the normal editorial decision making process at articles. But there are several issues with this RFC process and what it could trigger. First, it is so vaguely written so that it could be interpreted categorically. Second, I do think that the venue is too narrow and arguably obscure especially for something that could be interpreted so broadly and categorically. I've been heavily involved on several genre articles and genre projects for may years and I've never even heard of this wikiproject music nor even knew it existed until someone made a major edit at an article giving only this RFC as a reason. Given all of this, an RFC such as this should have had much more calibrated wording with an advisory type result. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what to tell you anymore. It's nonsense to collectively lump together 3 music WikiProjects - WP:MUSIC/ALBUMS/SONGS - as "obscure". I really don't think your case is typical - to 1) work heavily in music articles 2) not be involved in any of the WP:MUSIC/ALBUMS/SONGS and yet 3) have interest in participating in this RFC. I really hate to go there, but since you're not exactly giving me the benefit of the doubt either I feel like I have to say it - this feels like it more like an attempt to discredit an RFC in which you have little chance in swaying a strong consensus, than any actual problems in the RFC itself. The RFC is still ongoing, and yet all you do is complain rather than try to notify these other WikiProjects you feel should be notified. And again, its not realistic to expect the output to have been different had they be notified anyways. I mean, look at some of these music genre WikiProjects. WP:ROCKMUSIC for example. Over the course of all of 2017, it's talk page around 15 edits all year, excluding bot edits and archiving edits, and averages 5-10 views a day. They're not very active, and this seems to be par for the course. It's not realistic to think that there'd be 1) a ton of new input or 2) enough one-sided input to overcome the roughly 12-1 consensus so far. Sergecross73msg me 15:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've made my points. Your recap misses most of them and adds things that weren't in my points or agenda. If I had any goal, it would be to recognize (via either rewording of the RFC or just pointing out the reality of the situation) that the results of any RFC here are a recommendation from a particular venue of many possible venues and projects where such a recommendation could come from.North8000 (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you can simultaneously say you've made your point while accusing me of missing the point, all the while sharing a sentiment shared by no one else in the discussion. It's rather clear you haven't. Sergecross73msg me 16:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me having stated points and you omitting them in your post can certainly co-exist, and so the conflict inferred in your first sentence does not exist. My last two posts were correcting mis-statements about me/my posts. Arguments about my arguments are fine, but a mis-statement of mine is not useful. Would rather not have to do that again but otherwise happy to discuss any aspect further or to just leave it as everyone having stated their points. My thoughts on the RFC is that it's good advice for 95% of situations, and has the stated problems regarding a claim or propensity to be taken further than that. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the most relevant style guideline here may be WP:LEADIMAGE, which I don't believe has been mentioned yet. Among other things, it recommends that the infobox "carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." It also suggests, "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." While Seeger is representative of folk music, so is everyone else I mentioned, just as Blink-182 are representative of pop punk - but putting these artists as the infobox image implies a primacy of place that is almost always contestable and is usually contested. (I chose ragtime for a reason; most people can't even name another ragtime composer, but I still think it's undue to put Joplin in the infobox.) So I guess the question becomes, do we wait for specific fights about representation in infoboxes and leave uncontested infoboxes alone, or do we suggest a general rule for dealing with genre images, such as leaving the genre field blank? Chubbles (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many good points for a discussion at the article. After covering the various particulars, we'd probably all agree on an outcome. North8000 (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But I guess the rub here is that, when these kinds of disputes occurred, agreements on outcomes were almost never forthcoming; they were more or less inherently intractable, and based in non-neutral value assumptions (though sometimes backed, spuriously, with empirical data like Google search hits and pageviews). I will of course not start such a discussion at contemporary folk music, but I would argue, for this genre and for essentially any genre, that "there is no easy representation of the topic", suggesting that a generalized rule of no image in genre infoboxes is a reasonable recommendation. Chubbles (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All good points. And I could certainly see where it could be a problem at a lot of articles. Fandom vs. article quality. I'd be happy to have such a discussion with you at the article based n what's best for the article. We might decide that that article is more about a 30 year historical sequence than a genre article and that Seeger is acknowledged by even the giants to be their granddaddy in it. Or we might decide that having his picture there overly slights the other giants. And I'd be happy to go with whatever answer we came up with, even if it opposite to my current idea. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might be more persuasive if you start introducing those sorts of arguments now. Hypotheticals are fun, but not a single example has been given as an appropriate time where a single artist could be used to represent an entire music genre and not violate things like WP:LEADIMAGE or WP:UNDUE, and I don't see how they could honestly, per Chubbles explanation above. We've got a lot of policy/guideline citing going on, and then we've got you with all these thoughts on what someone might reason someday. That doesn't hold up. Sergecross73msg me 23:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73 Please stop with your sniping at me and negative mis-characterizations and mis-spins of my discussions. Your posts are completely leaving out and thus mis-stating my clearly stated points. North8000 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you to give a specific example that would support your stance because you haven't given any. I fail to see how that's a mischaracterization. Sergecross73msg me 03:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, that discussion would indicate that a gallery of images in the infobox of genre articles (e.g., a montage of musicians in a genre) would be no solution, either. Chubbles (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Considering WP:LEADIMAGE as mentioned earlier by another editor. In any case, what was the rationale for this Rfc? It would be helpful to understand the context. Were there complaints or disagreements about the images used? I don't recall any.--DanJazzy (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only people to cite LEADIMAGE used it for a "No" stance. How does LEADIMAGE support your "Yes" stance exactly? And yes, the RFC was spurred because an editor tried adding a band image to a lot of different genre articles at once, much like the Blink 182/pop punk example given in the RFC question. Sergecross73msg me 03:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry I'm not too familiar with Blink 182/pop punk, maybe that's why I missed that. In my understanding, such disagreements don't appear to be so prevalent as to warrant change in policy. The Jazz article, for instance, had no issues with Louis Armstrong as the lead image.
As for WP:LEADIMAGE, the policy speaks for itself. "It is common for (the) infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanJazzy (talk • contribs) 04:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The policy doesn't speak for itself at all, especially when people just used it to argue the opposite stance. How does one single music act properly and appropriately represent an entire genre of music? "It hasn't been an issue" isn't valid here, when it was spurred after the attempts of an article to do it over like 10+ articles?, all of which were challenged. Sergecross73msg me 16:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A single music act can represent a Genre Honorific nicknames in popular music e.g. Elvis Presley (Rock), Louis Armstrong (Jazz), Scott Joplin (Ragtime), Michael Jackson (Pop), James Brown (Funk), Aretha Franklin (Soul), Mahalia Jackson (Gospel), Celia Cruz (Salsa), Bob Marley (Reggae), B.B. King (Blues), DJ Kool Herc (Hip-Hop) etc These artists literally define their genres and in many cases are the progenitors of these musical forms. --DanJazzy (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are all fine examples, but not definitive examples. Why not Tupac or Kanye West for Hip Hop? Why not Led Zeppelin or Queen for rock? Why not N Sync for pop? The arguments and edit warring would be endless, and there'd be no right answer. There's already enough genre-warring on Wikipedia. Your stance only compounds these issues. I don't think you've very thoroughly thought this out... Sergecross73msg me 18:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that's my point, isn't it? In the articles of the above mentioned genres, there wasn't any controversy on the lead image. Therefore, there was no need to stir the hornets nest with this RfC. If there's an issue with one article, it can be sorted out individually. Anyway, my contribution still stands, thanks for the input.--DanJazzy (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"In the articles of the above mentioned genres, there wasn't any controversy on the lead image."? There is no lead image at Jazz, Soul music, Gospel music, Rock music, Pop music – which explains the lack of controversy. Nor at almost all of the rock subgenre articles (as mentioned, Progressive rock seems to be an anomaly). Marley and Brown appear at reggae and funk respectively, yes, and a Joplin image is beside the lead but not inside the infobox. It's worth pointing out that Funk and Reggae are also inconsistent with the majority of genre articles in the level of artist namedropping that appears in the lead paragraphs; at the other articles linked above, as with Country music, there are few to no artists named at all in the lead(s).
I think some of your choices for "defining" artists are off, personally, or at least contentious. What about the Rolling Stones for rock? Smokey Robinson, James Brown or Marvin Gaye for soul? As for blues, *&^#, move over B.B. – what about Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson, etc? Obvious point being that the choice of artist is highly subjective. And as I've found in some of the rock subgenre articles, the same subjectivity is reflected in sources writing about the styles. JG66 (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the images on jazz, soul music, gospel music, and ragtime have all been changed since the opening of this RfC. The UNDUE issues you point out, i believe, are nevertheless valid. Chubbles (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, sorry. After weighing in on this RfC on 9 Jan, I'd not really paid much attention until now – so I hadn't read your comments about images in those articles. JG66 (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly no – Artists considered to have singlehandedly led the genre should merit infobox space - such as California Sound --Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad metric, though I think that's the first example we have of singlehandedly and overwhelmingly defining the style. It's definitely not true of ragtime (Joplin was not the only major composer of his day; he's just remembered that way in retrospect), contemporary folk, or reggae - perhaps the three most lopsided examples we've had so far. Chubbles (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RFC about album years in navigation templates
There is no consensus. If I may try to summarize: there are valid arguments on both sides--on the one hand, years add clutter; on the other, years add information. As editors point out, templates could be split if they get too confusing. On the personal tip, as an admin, I'd suggest that these could be discussed individually (it's not like their infoboxes...), and as a Wikipedia editor, I find that "arbitrarily forcing one way and disallowing the other" is not in the spirit of our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the year of release of an album be placed in navigation templates (WP:NAV) for bands and musicians.
If you believe "Yes", then that means you'd prefer it to look like this example.
No - Adding years like this does not aid the reader's navigation of the subject, which is the entire purpose of navigation templates. It only clutters the look of the template. Additionally, there are no shortage of other places to find out the year of album releases. With many artists, like the example above, the info is already readily available in two other areas, the band's discography section at the parent article, and the band's dedicated discography article. Sergecross73msg me 17:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Band templates are mostly made for successful and long-running bands, that pass for various eras that encompass many genre and cultural changes within their sound. The years placed in the navigation template help the reader to find what era a particular album belongs. ABC paulista (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No A simple click on the article reveals the year of the album, no need for clutter and fancruft. The Bannertalk 20:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No - When I want to see a simple listing of an artist's output with accompanying year, I go to the discography section of the artist's article. There's no need for the years to appear in the navbox as well. Sure, it'd be mildly more convenient, but that near insignificant reward isn't worth the added clutter to the navbox.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Unnecessary. And it raises the question why years don't then appear for all releases in the navbox: live albums, compilations, EPs, singles (which, for acts that have operated for decades, would make the 'box horrendously large). I just noticed that years are included in Template:The Beatles compilations. In some ways, I can see it makes sense there, to aid comprehension of 50 years of post-career releases for a band that only operated for 8 years as recording artists. So perhaps exceptions could be made in rare instances such as that, I don't know … JG66 (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm in agreement with all the reasons for not having them. A navbox should be used for navigational purposes. The year of release is informational which can be found by clicking on the article (which I assume is why someone would click on it - to get more information about it) or checking out the artist's discography. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Yes, per @ABC paulista:. Without the years in brackets, the album titles without quotation marks run one right into the other. The singles have quotation marks, which prevent them from doing so. I am surprised that I am only finding out about this RFC now. This is the easiest way to copy albums from the vast majority of main page listings that lead to a separate discography page. If the navbox is horrendously large, then it can be split into an albums navbox and a singles navbox. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
May Neither yes it must be used or no it must never be used. The question as asked is not neutral. No one is forcing navigation templates with albums to include dates, but it's frequently useful to include, yes for informational purposed but also as logical separators. If there are too many entries, then it's probably not worth the potential clutter. But to create a consensus for something that has gained widespread use as can be seen from the Beatles example. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, there isn't so much "widespread use" as much as there is a handful of editors that keep adding and removing it from articles throughout the project. I'm trying to stop the needless arguing and reverting. You're free to your opinion, but your stance doesn't help address this recurring issue at all, which is bizarre because it was my discussions with you months ago that inspired me to start up this RFC in the first place. Sergecross73msg me 04:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I generally don't add them, but I have seen them in many nav templates. I did update the nav template you used in the RfC so that all albums list year. And it occurred to me that I frequently don't recall which year albums are released and including them in the nav template helps me to remember which album I'm looking for. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Walter Gorlitz, in that "including [years] in the nav template helps me to remember which album I'm looking for". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Optional It makes sense usually for shorter discographies.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, users could add (under very specific circumstances) the year if there were several self titled albums released in a row, which is the case for the template [6] of The House of Love. Woovee (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I wasn't aware of any artists releasing different albums under the same name across different years like that. Yes, I think it makes sense in rare instances like that, to avoid a lifetime of editors removing one of them, mistakenly thinking they were removing a duplicate entry. Sergecross73msg me 15:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, except as mentioned above for disambiguation, and the need for dates in those rare cases will have been decided when the article titles were chosen. The dates don't help with navigation, and compactness may be important for those using small screens. This may be less of a problem when there are only a few entries, but then there should be no difficulty in navigating without dates.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allow (optional): it's certainly a normal way to think of album releases, and many readers expect it. It should be an editorial decision, and should not be disallowed. I don't follow the reasoning "Adding years ... does not aid the reader's navigation of the subject"—of course it does. What a bizarre thing to assert. This is especially so when there are multiple rows for studio, live, etc. releases—it helps readers see the how these releases fit into the chronology. "A simple click on the article reveals the year of the album" forces the reader to click back and forth through the articles—so much for "simple"! What brought all this on, by the way? The RfC gives us no context. What problem is supposed to be solved by this micromanagement? We do not add rules just because WEDONTLIKESOMETHING. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 05:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who creates a lot of album and song articles, I'm frequently adding articles to band navigation templates. I've observed that people are frequently adding and removing years. I asked, and there didn't seem to be a consensus on whether they should be on there or not. It's not an effort to micromanage, it's an effort to stop the reverting and slow motion edit wars. You're free to your stance (and baffling ire towards an attempt to settle a long running issue), but as I've mentioned to others, these "optional" stances without any conditions do nothing to solve the arguments ensuing. Sergecross73msg me 16:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73: so we "solve" it by arbitrarily forcing one way and disallowing the other? No, that's not a solution. Try something patterned on WP:RETAIN. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 08:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhhh I take it you're not big on MOS stuff? Because this is not any different than anything like that. Standardization of content and formatting of articles and lists are established throughout the project, so I have idea why this seems so different to you... Sergecross73msg me 18:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73: Uhhhh ... I have no idea how you have reached such a non sequitur of a conclusion—notice how I linked to the Mos (or where do you think MOS:RETAIN points to?) Notice how the MoS does not enforce a uniform ENGVAR, date formats, use of infoboxes, grammatical prescriptions, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.? Overriding editorial decisions such as by forcing or disallowing these dates is the sort of thing the MoS does not do. Just how familiar are you with the MoS? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 23:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to your comments about "forcing" or "disallowing" editors from writing or displaying things certain ways - the point being that we have discussions, policies, and guidelines that "force" or "disallow" all the time, so your whining about that is invalid. Wasn't referring to your RETAIN comment, so chill out. That aside, your comments about RETAIN we're actually a little more helpful than the rest of what you've said so far. Most templates don't include years, so RETAIN would largely keep the years out, which is where I fell on my stances. Sergecross73msg me 00:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request For Comment about ranking charts on music articles
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
I have been given numerous amounts of feedback regarding the placement of ranking charts within music albums. I have stated that per WP:IDEALSTUB, that sufficient context shall be given in placing ranking charts within an article, even if the chart is almost identical to a chart table that exists in an artist, ensemble, or discography page, and might not be formatted in an ideal manner. Some of these music ranking charts are difficult to manipulate, therefore, leeway should be permitted to persons who wish to copy and paste the information from one article to another, so long as they update the references to an appropriate access date. If the chart is identical, the information is still there, even if the table contains empty columns. Additionally, I have been scolded about putting music ranking charts for singles in an album article, if the artist/ensemble/discography page already has these rankings. I think that users should be permitted to add these to album articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - what this editor has been doing, which is extremely sloppy and causing a lot of cleanup for something that isn't even necessary. Essentially, he's just ripping excessive amounts of a bands discography and slapping it in the album article for information on album's singles. To take a recent example with the band Breaking Benjamin. In their album Ember, he recently ripped a huge portion of the discography into the album article, and then whittled it down to this, and then called it done. This is bad work on multiple levels:
It's sloppy work because only 2 of the 6 charts he added had anything to do with this particular album.
In short, he's adding content to an article that was already better implemented at least 3-4 other areas on Wikipedia, and the only real reasons I've seen is "because he can" and that it helps him make the most low-effort, lazy stub articles possible. (Not in the Breaking Benjamin example, but as seen here.) Sergecross73msg me 17:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not even sure I understand what the first part of the RfC is asking about – could Jax 0677 or someone please point me in the direction of an example (past diff) of what these "ranking charts" would look like? Richard3120 (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame you, I don't think I'd understand if this RFC were my introduction to the situation either. But the scenario I've laid out in my stance above is pretty much what he's talking about - ripping song charts from discography articles and plastering it in album articles as is. My difs above show it in the situation that spurred the RFC, though he's met opposition in doing this in multiple other articles from multiple other editors as well. Sergecross73msg me 00:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jax creates a stub album article such as Straight from the Barrio, adding a chart section that is a direct copy/paste from the artist's discography page (in this example, Upon a Burning Body#Discography) as explained above, leaving the extra columns for the charts that other albums in their discography have reached but not this particular one and expecting/knowing editors like myself will come along and put it in the style more in line with MOS:CHARTS, as I did here. My suggestion is that he stop the practice altogether as it puts the burden on other editors to fix when a link would suffice. If someone else wants to do it right the first time, let them do so on their own not as a mop-up crew. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed People ding Google searches for information on bands will likely find such information confusing rather than find it helpful. Damotclese (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to go back to the one point I find most problematic in WP:NALBUM: No. 2 "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." We think that just because an album has charted it must have an article and then we create an article with basic information about the album: who released it, when it was released, a track listing and charting numbers. If we try to delete the article, we're told that it meets the criteria so we can't delete it. That's nonsense. Particularly in the example given here, where the info is contained in the discography article, or in some cases, can be easily incorporated into the band or performer article. I'm not opposed to including charting in a larger article (compare Songs of Experience (U2 album)#Charts with U2 discography#Studio albums, where the former is one part of a larger article on the album). If there's nothing else there though, it's a bad idea to create the article. The question isn't worthy of an RfC either. A simple question here would have been enough to elicit this comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Görlitz - To be clear (because the RFC question is vague and confusing), the issue was more about whether or not he should be ripping massive charts out of the discography articles and posting it into the album article about the album's singles charting. (See my comment above for difs on a past scenario of what he does to album articles.) For the the record, I fully support album charts being in album articles, and song charts being in song articles. And I also fully agree that this didn't need to be an RFC. Prior to this, there were already 3 separate editors asking Jax to stop doing things the way he was doing for a variety of reasons. Sergecross73msg me 20:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fully concur that the question is not clear and I tried to address the exact point you raised. I too support charts being in album articles, provided that there's enough for an article. I don't support that an article should be nothing more than 1) an infobox, 2) a lede with obvious information 3) a track listing, 4) a charting section 5) references and 6) categories. That looks like what Jax is doing. Are we viewing the same coin from opposite sides? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're pretty much on the same page, in that we generally oppose Jax's actions. I don't think it's necessary to have charts for singles in the album articles, but my objection is more about Jax's terrible implementation of the charts than the charts themselves. Sergecross73msg me 01:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also on the same page. :) StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of singles chart tables in album articles, because I don't feel it adds any context to the album – if you want to see a particular single's worldwide chart success you can look at that single's article or the act's discography article, and if the single doesn't have its own article it was probably only a minor hit in one country, and that can be noted in the text body for the album. The singles tables can lead to some confusion as well, depending on what charts are included – look at the singles tables in the articles for Brothers in Arms (which includes two songs from the album that were never released as singles at all, but charted on the Billboard Mainstream Rock chart due to airplay alone), or Little Earthquakes (which lists the same single THREE times for different reissues and chart placings). Richard3120 (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC/SOURCES cleanup
Hello all. Due to some recent requests, and my own increased interest in music editing in recent years, I've decided to try to cleanup and improve our source list - WP:MUSIC/SOURCES - a bit. There's nothing wrong with it, and I'm not planning on doing any major deconstruction or anything, just some improvement stuff. I've worked a lot at the video game WikiProject's equivalent list and there's things I think we could do better here.
I want to try to link to past WikiProject discussions on sources, so it can be verified that it was discussed and there was agreement. (Right now, we do this well on the unreliable source list, but not the reliable source list.)
I'd like to start discussions on any that had no prior discussion, or if they seem a bit iffy.
I'd like to add, remove, or expand upon what we've got based on points #1 and 2.
I'll occasionally start new discussions as I find things I'd like input on. If you object to my changes, feel free to start up a section below too, and we can hash it out.
I can't find any discussion/guideline pertaining to music videos. Personally, I think listing them is redundant, and if they are noteworthy they are better written up as text with some meaningful detail (I'm thinking about videos like that for "Ashes to Ashes", etc.). I am a bit tired of seeing lists like Senses_Fail#Music_videos (and this is especially rampant in K-pop and similar genres), which strike me as little more than an excuse to drop a bunch of YouTube links in (and some fan trivia, maybe). It is not special anymore to make a video since they almost invariable accompany a single release, and I see no additional encyclopedic value in listing them. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a pretty widespread practice in the discography articles I tend to edit/maintain/read, so I had assumed it was acceptable to list. For example, A Perfect Circle discography and Nine Inch Nails discography are both Feature Lists and both have had a music video section ever since it received that status officially, it seems. I'm not necessarily defending the practice, but I do think it trying to remove it would be more maintenance effort than its worth. Sergecross73msg me 15:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
