Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Best-of lists
I have added several dozen (hundreds?) of sources to album articles where the critical reception puts it on best of lists. E.g. see the tables at The Greater Wings. I added a number of these today and removed one as "fluff". If other users think these are inappropriate, I'm not going to keep on adding hundreds to just be removed and waste my time. Do others agree that this shouldn't be added? If others agree with me, then someone please undo this removal. Thanks. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Why can’t you undo it yourself? Are you trying to get people to proxy for you? Ariaslaga (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am under an editing restriction and cannot undo anyone's edits. I am asking the community to see the consensus around this because I don't want to have my work undone hundreds of times over. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. What is the editing restriction for, if you don’t mind my asking? Ariaslaga (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't at all: it's public knowledge. I have engaged in edit-warring, which is inappropriate. Hence, I am seeking to abide by the dispute resolution process, which includes getting a third party to comment, including via WikiProjects. If I am doing something inappropriate now, please let me know. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Dude, stand up for yourself. It sounds like whoever put that restriction on you was trying to make you humiliate yourself going forward as some kind of a power play. Don’t let them have that. I’ll revert myself on your behalf, it’s not that big of a deal to me. Just please don’t be a beta, you’re better than that. Everyone is better than that. Ariaslaga (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it's nothing like that: my behavior was wrong and the community was valid to sanction me. I appreciate your time and encouragement. Thanks. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely terrible advice. Don't give unsolicited advice like this. Justin is handling things correctly, and your advice would do nothing but cause trouble. Sergecross73   msg me  14:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure they're going to see your message as they were blocked a week ago (a little harshly, to be honest, I don't see any evidence of blatant vandalism in their edits). Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This (CW mass shooter) looks plenty blatant to me, and paired with this I think the ban was the right move. Found both in this talk page section. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 21:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair enough... not exactly the vandalism I was referring to, but that commentary certainly seems banworthy. Richard3120 (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With regard to the tables, I believe there is a consensus that there should be a maximum of 10 rows in accordance with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Heartfox (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, in regards to the edit mentioned above, is it appropriate to keep it in the article or to remove it? ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with year-end ratings, but I feel "so far this year" or "of the first six months of 2024" lists are a bit pointless. I note that Ariaslaga has been indeffed since this thread started. Richard3120 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Richard, using "pointless" as a rationale to remove perspectives from (specifically) reputable, reliable authors of a subject (as determined by this, obviously) is not valid. Everything on this encyclopedia is pointless. Just because you find something "pointless", does not ban it from inclusion here. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty certain Richard's point is that a "best of" list that doesn't even take an entire year into effect, may not show much importance. That's not an uncommon sentiment. I add them occasionally on more obscure song articles that don't have a ton in the way of awards or reception, but it's not really much of an achievement for some superstar to show up "Billboard's Top 50 Hard Rock Albums of 2024 so far (published in April 2024.)" I mean, how many notable rock albums even came out over the course of 4 months? Sergecross73   msg me  18:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Users are to have whatever viewpoints they have on how sources give their perspectives on music, and that's fine. But no sourcing policy is based on whether users like it or not. I do not even care about any of the albums that have been discussed in relation to this topic. If users start removing critics' rankings over not personally finding any of them "important", that's pushing a point of view, and that is not the goal of an encyclopedia. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, incorrect. We are not robots working off of a computer program. We are humans capable of editorial discretion. These sorts of decisions are made all the time. Just because an RS published content does not make it compulsory for inclusion. RS coverage is the bare minimum for inclusion, not a requirement. Please don't start this up again, your stance on this was thoroughly rejected last time. Sergecross73   msg me  20:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Serge, Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, textbook magazine or newspaper, and neither is this Simple English Wikipedia. This is regular English Wikipedia which expects more sophistication from its readers and is about anything. Whether the human species are able to have editorial discretion in the manner you are talking is irrelative to how much Wikipedia permits with its content.
 * Also, when it comes to that "rejection", you are talking about an AFD that took place six months that a small fraction of the users on this website participated in. We go off of current consensus agreed by all users, not what a random selection of users said in a specific topic page months ago. I had a way more hostile tone of voice and attitude than how I am commenting in this section currently that I am not proud of, which I imagine is the real reason other users were not willing to listen, and I have the right to give another go proper in case anyone has changed their minds. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 20:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, has this WikiProject actually made these decisions besides the YE limit? If so, that is a big problem. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 21:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not wasting my time on this again. This is misguided advice no one follows, placed in the middle of a week old unrelated discussion.  Sergecross73   msg me  21:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am going to start another section on this page against the 10-row limit, but this is a fact: WP:INDISCRIMINATE absolutely does not apply to rankings of what the best of thousands of records in specific time periods were from journalists writing for publications of strong editorial standards, as the examples provided are obviously WP:Primary sources, such as opinion polls, user ratings on sites like AOTY or IMDb, or crime numbers published by police departments. Best-of lists from sources like NME and Under the Radar are not primary. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 18:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We've been through this before. It's not compulsory to include every single award/review an RS publishes. But yes, you should probably start a new discussion. Have you read this one all the way through? It already wrapped up days ago when the troublesome editor in question was indeffed. Sergecross73   msg me  18:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I know what the section is about. It is about an editor who has been indefinitely block for vandalizing a page under the kind of rationale that's currently consensus on WikiProject Albums that I am disputing. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * a question... what's your view on including both half-yearly and end-of-year rankings for an album? Richard3120 (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for the delay in response because edit conflicts on this page prevented my comments from getting published, but it is not an opinion but rather the truth. It meets WP:WEIGHT to factor in all reliable sources. regardless if they are year-end lists or half-of-year-end lists. Therefore, it is the correct thing to do. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This also seems correct to me. In fact, a magazine posting a standard review seems notable than saying that said album is one of the best of the mid-year. That's a more substantial coverage as far as I'm concerned. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this actually, because it favours albums released in the first half of the year... nobody does "the best albums from July to December", so I do think there is undue weight given to albums released between January and June. Richard3120 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's also less noteworthy to be singled out for said lists as the selection period grows shorter. Just like I rarely give any credence to these "Best songs released on June 28th, 2024" articles some reliable sources write, unless it seems 100% necessary to establish a song was notable. Sergecross73   msg me  13:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If there was any ranking that was from an unreliable source or not sourced at all, it's objectively "fluff" or unnecessary. If not, than the editor does not have a valid argument. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 18:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Grammys list on List of awards and nominations received by Red Hot Chili Peppers is wrong
According to the official Grammys page, the list on this Wikipedia page is very wrong. I'd fix it myself but tangling with tables is one of my least favorite Wikipedia tasks. Would anyone care to take a look? Popcornfud (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Looks like a lot of these were added last year by the editor JasonH1978. Richard3120 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, it looks like it was an IP last month - my apologies to Jason for the false accusation. So a simple revert to the version before the IP's edits should do it. Richard3120 (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks to @Zmbro for reverting that. But I don't think it's the whole story. The page now says they won 6 Grammys, but they've only won 3. Popcornfud (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've done some further work and it's slightly less wrong than it was but still wrong. The table is giving me a headache and I'm out of time. If anyone else wants to fix this that would make my day. Popcornfud (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I *think* it's all fixed now... apart from the edit mentioned above, this edit seems to have been the main culprit. However, a lot of these still need sourcing to verify them... and the number of wins/nominations in the infobox and in the lead need updating. Richard3120 (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Richard3120 Thanks! But the Grammys table still isn't right. They only won three awards but the table says they won five. Like I said, I've tried to fix this but the table formatting makes my eyes spin. Popcornfud (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ It is now actually accurate without whatever weird noise someone introduced and has proper semantics per MOS:DTAB and MOS:TABLECAPTION. Thanks for helping. Teamwork makes the dream work. <3 ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! What a relief. Popcornfud (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Doh, sorry, the Grammy Awards were the ones I DIDN'T check because I stupidly assumed that they were the ones that you had already managed to fix – thank you . I've updated the infobox, but I'm not sure if the total awards/nominations here should only total the ones mentioned in the infobox, or all of them. And it's still not completely fixed, because although attempted to move everything into a single table, she noted that she was leaving out the Hungarian Music Awards because of possible duplication, but I think she has accidentally moved out some of the MTV Europe Awards and and Žebřík Music Awards as well in the process. Richard3120 (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Richard3120 the ZMAs were left out because I fell asleep and was unable to complete the table before that (my last edit was made after 4am so I was too tired). I didn't remove any of the MTV EMAs entries. The big table contains exactly what was listed in the original standalone table. Going to finish the merge now. The only thing that'll still be separate is the HMAs table, because I genuinely don't know what to do about it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Is the Afropop Worldwide website a reliable source for album reviews?
Many of the reviews on the website are credited to Banning Eyre, a published musicologist. He's also on the team page of their website. He owns a record label, but as far as I can tell it is very minor and none of his reviews are for its releases. Besides Eyre, the most regular reviewer is Mukwae Wabei Siyolwe, who doesn't seem to have written for other notable music publications.

I think it would be valuable to include Afropop Worldwide in the list of reliable sources at WP:RSMUSIC, but specifying that only Eyre's reviews are to be used. I'll wait for input from other editors here before making any change. GanzKnusper (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Eyre is a great writer and he may be a subject matter expert. I know I've cited his book with Barlow as well as his other ones, and I think he contributes to NPR. The actual site could give a little more info on their editorial policies, etc., though. Caro7200 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, in fact Afropop Worldwide seems to be affiliated with NPR: https://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444269/pri-afropop-worldwide GanzKnusper (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To conclude: I won't add Afropop Worldwide to the reliable sources list, because they don't have a clear editorial policy. But Banning Eyre's reviews and coverage are OK to use, because of his subject matter expertise, à la David Katz. GanzKnusper (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Canadian Music Recording Certifications before 1975
According to the Music Canada website...

Music Canada’s Gold/Platinum Certification Program was launched in 1975 to celebrate milestone sales of music in Canada.

Only thing is, that is total bs.

Just a very small selection.,, , , ,, etc. etc.


 * Conclusion... At least as early as 1968(and possible years earlier too) a Single that sold 100,000 copies in Canada was Gold. And Album that sold 50,000 copies in Canada was Gold. From at least as early as 1973(and possibly earlier) and Album that sold 100,000 copies in Canada was Platinum'. Music Canada does not recognise this at all. But then Music Canada doesn't even recognise Music Canada's own 1975/1976 certifications! [ http://www.americanradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Business/Music/Archive-Cash-Box-IDX/70s/1976/Cash-Box-1976-10-09-OCR-Page-0015.pdf#search=%22iron%20butterfly%20j%20geils%20band%20platinum%22]

Wiki should include ALL these **1968**(possible earlier) through 1975 Canadian Certifications. Sadly, there is no central database. It would require going issue-by-issue through old copies of eg. Billboard, Cash Box etc. But it is preposterous to not recognise that eg. Jimi Hendrix, Cat Stevens etc. releases never received Canadian Gold Certifications...when they did! 197.87.135.139 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have no problem explaining this as long as we've got the reliable sources and proper context in the prose written for it. It could be a pretty tall order to find someone to manually dig through magazines for the actual certifications though. Sergecross73   msg me  01:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't BS that Music Canada's forerunner, the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), launched the official certification program in 1975. The question is, who was giving out these gold discs before then? I'm not against adding these certifications if we can establish that they were given by an official source. Richard3120 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The YE Rankings Consensus
I am starting a discourse on the current consensus set by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 64. The reasons for why I am doing this are extensive and would require reacting to every comment made by several participating editors in that discourse, but just so you all have a basic idea...
 * its basis in any guidelines or policy is lackluster, with the only cited page being an incorrect usage of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE,
 * it calls the cited example abstract names that are confusing to apply to what are simple tables with text and a gray background
 * it falsely equates ratings in reviews (which could range from extremely favorable, to lukewarm, to mixed, to unfavorable and should not have a limit for its template on a note for possibly another discourse) to statements of what was the top 100, 50 and 10 of a set of hundreds of thousands of albums (pretty much the top 1%), indicating poor judgement
 * its claims about the quality and editorial standards of the year-end lists in question is unsubstantiated and extremely speculative, and would be far from enough in a discussion about the reliability of a source
 * it attempts to push a point of view over what perspectives of professional music journalists are "noteworthy" and what are not
 * it makes the false statement that sources need to be covered in other sources to be worthy of inclusion, which is ridiculous anyway and would cause the article count of this site to be 0 if applied universally
 * And finally and most importantly, it opens the door to giving WP:UNDUE weight to only 10 publications in cases where there are several more claiming the album to be a numberth-best User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 21:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Opposed to loosening it up - we're an encyclopedia, not a reviews or awards aggregator compelled to document every approved website. INDISCRIMINATE was created for this sort of mindset. Sergecross73   msg me  21:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It would really help if you did not make loaded statements. Nobody thought this website was an aggregator before we had this limit, and it objectively was not. This is still going to be an encyclopedia regardless if this limit is here or not. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 22:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 10 is far too few and as you pointed out, will require some totally arbitrary decision criteria where editors all in some otherwise reliable sources and omit others. If an outlet is on WikiProject Albums/Sources, it's valid to include it in these kinds of listings. This could visually or page-layoutwise only be a problem after a couple dozen and 99.9% of albums would never be on that many lists anyway. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Listing every best-of ranking is not a summary. A summary is not arbitrary. Limit of 10 aligns with longstanding practice at the album reviews template. Having no limit on the template is even more comical. Heartfox (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about music ratings. You seem confused. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's referred to in the opening statement. Heartfox (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I made a side comment about the ratings template because the consensus compared year-end lists to ratings. That's what Heartfox is referring. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 22:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the misinterpretation of the WP:NOT page that I briefly referred to in my first bullet point. Yes, there is a lot of details we do not put in for a variety of reasons. we do not summarize every single level and button command in a video game. We do not cover every cheat code or glitch. We do not bring up every small thing that happens in a film, book or TV episode when summarizing the plot. We do not have every definition in the dictionary on here. And we do not present every statistic and number that has ever been tracked by government and website logs. I have much time behind me editing this site and am very aware of that.
 * Here's the real question: How does this violate WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE? The most appropriate bullet point to this discourse is "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", but ignoring the obvious that this is specifically for WP:Primary source statistics (and these are viewpoints from independent sources we are talking about here), this does not prohibit having the tables or coming up with a universally-applied bar of a number of rows. It does acknowledge that these tables can be sometimes "so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article" but recommends "to split into a separate article" and have a brief description of it in the main article. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 23:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please take a long hard read revisiting this discussion again. The community is largely and strongly against your approach. Sergecross73   msg me  23:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Serge, can you please engage with the comment I just made instead of repeatedly linking me to a random AFD that took place six months ago and contains all of the same arguments as in the consensus I am disputing here? A small portion of users in a AFD from a specific seven-day time period is not "the community". User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 23:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 10+ AFD participants rejected your notion. Zero supported it. Sergecross73   msg me  23:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 10 out of 10,000 active contributors. Literally six months ago. 3 participants did not give any rationale. 3 I had heavy back-and-forths with, the rest I could not respond to because I was blocked for an unrelated incident. All gave rationales that were invalid. You are not arguing anything. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 00:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, Heartfox, the Summary style applies to how prose is written, not lists and tables. When they state you can't present every detail, they mean that you have to concisely describe all of the available literature (sentences on frequently-held viewpoints, for example), meaning you cannot just individually describe every individual viewpoint, that you cannot WP:QUOTEFARM reviews. We still have summary-style prose alongside long lists of numbers, films actors have starred in, albums and singles singers have released, polls and rankings for the popularity of political figures etc., and no such advocacy for the removal of that is taking place here. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 14:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "No such advocacy for the summary-style" is what I meant to write there, for clarification User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 14:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Opposed: 10 is plenty, and there's a history of consensus beyond that as a hard limit on multiple areas of album articles. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 22:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, but I am expecting more from opposing commenters. Do you have something better than "It's just consensus" and other aspects of articles have this? Consensus can change and be contestable. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 22:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, sure, but the reasons we developed that consensus in the first place are still valid. Have you looked back at the old versions of some of those articles with dozens of lists? It was absurd. I think having a hard limit is entirely self-explanatory, and I stand by it. What more is there to be said than that? Serge put it as well as it could be put already anyway. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 22:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The whole reason I am starting this section is because none of their reasons were "valid" by any stretch of the imagination, and you are telling me to just accept what are you saying on blind faith. What's "Self-explanatory"? "Absurd" based on what? The lists are massive, but that is simply because lots of reputable publications considered the LPs one of the best of their respective years, so thus the size of the table reflect that. All of the publications meet WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources. And no, there is no evidence any of the listed publications or "self sourced" or created under a low-quality "clickbait" method as JG66 kneejerkedly presumed.
 * There is no pillar on this website to write in such a manner that appeals to the masses' instant gratification, ignoring the fact that no one is putting a gun to anyone's head to read the entire articles, and can organize the table however they like and use the "Find in Page" feature to look for the year-end ranking, or can just read the in-prose summary of the year-end lists without having to read the table. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 23:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've already addressed how this does not fall under that guideline. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 00:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, we saw. We don't agree. Sergecross73   msg me  00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is WP:NOTEVERYTHING disagreeing with you, not me. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose I feel you. However, there was overwhelming agreement that a condensed list with no more than ten publications is preferable. I have seen remarkable situations where some mixed prose (also compacted) with tables where a record topped the ranking of several publications and/or all-time and decade-end listicles, which I personally find also acceptable. Reputable music publications (Billboard, AllMusic etc) would be the priority over other references. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (1) The "overwhelming agreement" was years ago, and just because lots of users supported it does not mean it was correct or sound. Wikipedia discussions are not !vote systems. WP:Consensus can change
 * (2) What are "reputable" music publications? Is there an official WP policy or guideline that dictates this?
 * (3) We do not write content based on what users "personally" prefer. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 21:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To point 2, start with WP:RSMUSIC. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 22:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not know if he is referring to that or the different standard of "noteworthy" users set in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 64, which this discourse is a response to. Please let the user themselves elaborate on their own point. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 23:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They literally gave you 2 examples for point number 2. This is bordering on badgering. Sergecross73   msg me  22:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Serge... Are you seriously accusing me of WP:BLUDGEONING all because I asked a user to elaborate on a point he did not define clearly enough, as any user would do in a WP:CIVIL discussion? User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 23:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well you are replying to every comment in the discussion and making the same argument to everyone. I'd say that's pretty much the definition of BLUDGEONING as I understand it. If Serge is indeed making such an accusation, then I agree with it. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 03:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am obviously not making the same comment in every reply. What? User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 12:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not make sense to ask questions like "what publications?" when they gave you 2 examples already. It gives off the vibe that you're not even paying attention to what people are saying to you (yet again.) Sergecross73   msg me  12:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting what I commented. I did not ask "what publications"; I asked what they meant by the specific adjective "reputable". Just mentioning the names of two sources tells me nothing. What do they mean by "reputable"? Does he mean all reliable sources or something different since this conversation already talks about limiting reliable source rankings on a list? If he means everything on WP:RSMUSIC, then an Oppose vote is weird because every publication on the complete tables met WP:RSMUSIC. And if it's something different, what makes Billboard and AllMusic so "reputable" over "other references"? User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 12:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Come on, you're active in the music content area, you should be able to wrap your head around this. It's plain to see that websites like Billboard or AllMusic are particularly prevalent in the industry. Billboard (magazine) and MetalSucks are not equal publications of importance in the industry, even if RSMUSIC both allows for their use. Sergecross73   msg me  13:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I know Billboard is known by a lot more people than MetalSucks, but you do not know if Apoxyomenus is referring to that. QuietHere assumed it was not "importance" Apoxyomenus was referring, but anything on WP:RSMUSIC, which includes Metalsucks. Do you see how contradictory and confusing this is? That's why I am asking questions. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 13:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do know Apoxyomenus meant that, because I read their stance. Their point seems relatively straight forward, I have no confusion on the matter. Sergecross73   msg me  13:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I read the same comment, too, Serge. To me, "reputable" could have met that with Wikipedians here when it comes to reliability, with the entire music industry out of Wikipedia, with other music journalists perceive them, OR with consumers of magazines. Those are not the same definitions. The fact that Quiethere did not interpret Apoxyomenus the same way you did proves my point. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 13:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And also, if (big emphasis on if) that is what they are referring to, where in WP:WEIGHT does it claim something as subjective as "importance" determines it prevalence in an article? User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 13:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Release date inconsistency
I'll use Back in Business (EPMD album) as an example, but I'd like to get a generalized advice I could apply elsewhere later. A few years ago I changed unsourced release date of September 23 to sourced September 16. Now an editor comes in and changes it back to September 23. I reverted them, but they restored it, claiming that the official artist page on Instagram says it's September 23. I checked and it indeed does say so. However, the first release date source currently in the article is a magazine article from 2009 with compiled data received directly from the label, including release dates. The other sources are a contemporary newspaper and an article from 2008. The dates are important here because in 2012 an IP editor mass changed release dates in numerous articles, including this one. I can't say whether or not it's a case of citogenesis, but now we have several pre-2012 sources saying September 16 (here are a few more contemporary ones ; I can't seem to find contemporary sources for September 23 but some newspapers ads do mention that date) and modern day official Instagram of the duo, with whoever running it claiming it's September 23. Who should get the priority here?  AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 04:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I would favour the contemporary, not-self-published source. But could there be something else going on, like release dates in different countries? I'd guess it's not a coincidence that the suggested dates are exactly 1 week apart. In the XXL article you linked, the release date of Ja Rule's Rule 3:36 is also one week out from what the Wiki article (sourced to AllMusic) claims. And AllMusic has totally different months for Whatcha Gonna Do? and He Got Game. GanzKnusper (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To put things honestly, I like to remind you that the Sep 23 date was from the official social media page for the group, possibly verified as an official page by independent sources, not just any self-published source like you are framing it. To get back to the main focus of the section, I have encountered these situations so much and it drives me crazy in 1980s and 1970s albums, when the only sources for release dates were magazine and newspaper listings and PR. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 13:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I always go with the contemporary source. Modern–day sources often don't have the actual data to hand, and in fact a lot of them get their information from Wikipedia, which creates a WP:CIRCULAR sourcing argument. The people running websites and social media will upload whatever information they are told to upload, they are not fact-checking the dates. More than once I've found a band's official website give completely the wrong release date, so I never consider an official website or social media as reliable. Richard3120 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * regarding the fact that the dates are one week apart; both dates are Tuesdays, pre-2015 release day in the US. If it was a release date from a different country, it wouldn't necessarily be on Tuesday. I've actually encountered an even crazier case, where I found sources for 3 different Tuesdays. As for these other examples, they all have something in common: if you check revisions from around 2010, they listed different release dates. AllMusic provides the release date in its sidebar, which is to be avoided per WP:A/S. Sourcing release dates for older albums is the worst, especially after all these unsourced changes stayed up for a decade.  AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 15:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed – hstorically, release dates were always on Tuesdays in the US, but if the release date was from Europe, it would have been on a Monday... UK release dates for both singles and albums were on Mondays from around 1984–85 until Global Release Day in 2015 changed it to Fridays all around the world. Richard3120 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * More than once I've found a band's official website give completely the wrong release date, so I never consider an official website or social media as reliable. That makes me think of how Bowie's website unearthed "new evidence" from RCA Records that stated The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars came out on June 16, 1972 and not June 6 (as was widely reported for decades before). (June 16 is currently in the infobox and body). To me crap like that makes no sense and only adds more confusion. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Record labels are also hopeless at knowing the release dates of their own records from before the internet era. One of the worst examples is Island Records telling everyone for decades that Nick Drake's Bryter Layter came out on 1 November 1970, to the point that two biographies and Island's own deluxe reissue of the album quote this date. We now know that Island got not only the day wrong, not just the month wrong, but even the year wrong... it was 5 March 1971. Richard3120 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't get me started on streaming services on releases prior to the streaming era either. Countless times they can't even get the years right. It kills me when I'm trying to organize/clean up an obscure band's discography... Sergecross73   msg me  00:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Seemingly unreliable review
At In_Sexyy_We_Trust, the only review is from a source not listed here: WikiProject Albums/Sources. If others agree that this is unreliable and should not be included, please delete it. If anyone wants to make the case that it should be added to our list of reliable sources, please chime in. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Ii agree, this doesn't look like a strong source and the quote given from the source isn't really illuminating in any case. Popcornfud (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Stylization concern
Just made a bold edit to The Story of I regarding its use of a stylized title, and I feel confident in that move. However, I'm less sure about the same use of the symbol, a non-free image, in the article's track listing. Should the symbol be replaced there as well, and the image file deleted as WP:F5? QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 21:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The edit has been undone by Martin IIIa, so consider the discussion expanded to include that as well. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 02:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as the lead goes, I don't know of any precedent of starting off an article with an image like that. Not to mention the symbol by itself, prior to explanation, would be perplexing to most readers. Definitely don't prefer Martin's version in that respect. Sergecross73   msg me  00:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Compilation vs. greatest hits
When setting the "type" parameter in the infobox of an album article, what's the difference between a compilation album and a greatest hits album? I think some albums are pretty clearly greatest hits albums -- for example, Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975) -- while others are obviously compilations -- for example, An Anthology. But for other albums, the distinction is less clear. For example, in this recent edit, QuasyBoy changed the type for The Best of the Grateful Dead Live from compilation to greatest hits. But for that album, I would more or less seriously say, what hits? Most of those songs didn't chart -- either the live versions compiled on the album, or the original studio versions of the songs. So to me it's more of a compilation. What do other editors think? — Mudwater (Talk) 01:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * As you said, it's easier to say which compilation albums are not greatest hits albums, e.g.:
 * compilations of multiple artists
 * albums compiled according to a clearly different criteria, e.g. Past Masters collects all non-album releases, Another Self Portrait is demos etc. from the Self Portrait and New Morning sessions, I Thank God is songs by Sam Cooke of a particular genre, Everything So Far is in the name.
 * So maybe "greatest hits" albums are just the subset of "compilation albums" that have no other reason for existing. It seems to me that the name "greatest hits" is a marketing trick (I'm sure we've all seen albums claiming to be greatest hits that have ridiculous omissions). If the Grateful Dead want to claim that this is the best of their live output, I won't argue. GanzKnusper (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's about it. Compilation albums are a grouping of songs together usually recorded for other releases first (other albums, EPs, stand-alone singles, b-sides, etc) while greatest hits albums are usually compilation albums that focus more of a group's most popular songs. (Though not exclusively, as they often have new/rare songs mixed in, and bands with a smaller collection of hits often have them "padded" with songs that weren't all that big.)
 * Like usual on Wikipedia, when in doubt, just go by whatever third party reliable sources label an album as. Sergecross73   msg me  13:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

"Debut"
I'd like clarification on the usage of this term. An artist/group releases an EP (on a label, not a demo), and nothing notable prior to that; it's their recording debut. Later, they release a studio album; this is surely no longer their debut album, but their first album, since they already had a debut release prior. Am I getting my usage mixed up? If they made their debut with an EP, surely a subsequent album cannot also be a debut. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's still considered their debut album! You can have a debut EP, a debut mixtape, a debut album, and major-label debut all as different releases. Eugenia ioessa (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Although if, for example, the debut EP came after three studio albums, I'd probably refer to it as their "first EP" instead, to avoid confusion. Richard3120 (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. And anecdotally, it seems to be how we generally handle it these days. Sergecross73   msg me  21:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Whitney Houston Live: Her Greatest Performances
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Whitney Houston Live: Her Greatest Performances that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliability
Is TheStreet a reliable source for music related matters, such as album sales? Thanks

Koppite1 (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I can't say its come up in the past. They're not a sales-tracking company, so I wouldn't think they'd have access to any sales that would haven't come from any of the usual places we get sales figures from. Sergecross73   msg me  15:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Paper magazine
Hello: I'm currently reviewing Virtual Self (EP) at FAC and came across an article by Paper. I'm not sure if it's reliable or not and would really like some insight on this source. — lunaeclipse  (talk)  17:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * In my experience, I don't see why it wouldn't be. Got a full editorial team listed here and I see plenty of writers with bylines at other reliable sources on Muck Rack, e.g. their music editor has written for NME, Uproxx, and Paste, and these two have both written for The New York Times. I would even recommend they be added to RSMUSIC, unless there's anything significant I've missed. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I've never seen any problem with this publication and there's plenty of genuine journalistic experience there. Richard3120 (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Beyond agreeing with everyone above, most publications that started as print media publications in the 1980/90/2000s meet our requirements anyways. Sergecross73   msg me  17:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:In These Times (publication)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:In These Times (publication) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. &#45;-Animalparty! (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaving
After years of working on album articles, I have decided it is not worth my time working with this group of people. I am still going to be editing elsewhere on this site, but if the group of music article editors consists of people who think that they can chop off parts of trees just because it offends their instant gratification and try to get users who call that out in trouble off of the flimsiest and fabricated of evidence, they are a lost cause and cannot be reasoned with. I am not naming names for the same reason teachers do not reveal to a classroom who got an F on the most recent test, but if the demise of music articles on this website keeps going, just know that all I did here was warn about it. So until circumstances here change, congratulations, you lost a participant! User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 17:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Robert Christgau, everyone's fav
Hello, see this more and more, although still in a minority of articles--Robert Christgau, listed alphabetically under R in the ratings template rather than C. This has always seemed super weird to me, as the linked term is to the person who has worked as a critic and journalist for 50+ years, not the web site that collects most of his previously published writing. I know this has always been a citing nightmare: he's on his 8th or 9th outlet, so there are now that many ways to cite him, starting with The Village Voice, his books, his site, a generic "Christgau Consumer Guide"--which sometimes means his column, book, or site--and his 4 or 5 post-VV firing outlets. On top of that, a substantial number of editors link to the site artist pages even when citing VV or his book, so it's often technically an incorrect citation right off the bat (he occasionally made changes to reviews/grades for his books and site). Most importantly, the linked term always refers to him, the person, not his site. I've read some album articles where an editor obviously thinks that, in the prose portion, "Robert Christgau" is just another music web site. I've considered for years boldly changing the sources page and the template example, but thought I'd post here first (it always seemed that one editor just stuck him under R, and everyone forgot about it). At heart, I think this is genuinely misleading and confusing to both editors and readers, and bad information, where one term means two things--not helped by the fact that only a few "named" critics are used in the template; strangely, Martin C. Strong as a name is almost always under S. I don't care at all if an editor chooses to cite VV or a book (again, so long as those works are actually cited, rather than his site), I'm just concerned about his name also equating to his site and the misinformation that results. I'm not exactly sure of WP's alphabetically sorting guidance--I remember a page that uses "George Washington" as an example, with the guidance that he's sorted under W, but maybe that is something old. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I've been replacing "Robert Christgau" with "The Village Voice" in the template (in articles about 1990s albums), since that's where he originally published his reviews. Like you say, there's usually a link to an artist page on his personal website. I use a quote from it to search his site to find the full Consumer Guide, and then use it to find the issue on ProQuest, to fill a citation template (cite magazine or cite news, no preference really) with date, issue number and pages. I keep a link to his website, since the reviews there were uploaded either by him or someone closely related to him ("as we can put up"; and it's several times easier to cite his website than the book on the Internet Archive, which may also soon disappear following the lawsuit), though I tend to replace artist page with a Consumer Guide page (example). However, these don't have stars on honorable mentions (and neither do ProQuest scans, so I guess he added stars later, in the book), in which case I have to link the artist page that includes stars. Sometimes I see "Christgau's Consumer Guide" instead, which I keep, even though I think it's not entirely correct since he reprinted the VV reviews in the book. For post-VV, I would use the name of whatever outlet he was reviewing for, with his name in the citation template. I would consider keeping his name in the scores template for his latest reviews, which he publishes independently.  AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 14:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is only part of the issue I brought up, but I have noticed that you often change from "Robert Christgau" to The Village Voice, but you don't change the link to his posted column--that's an incorrect citation. We seem to be undoing each other's work... I have no issue with the change, if you link to the proper column page. Caro7200 (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I previously explained, these columns don't actually differentiate honorable mentions, so you can't support, , and in articles with them. If you insist, I can cite Christgau's Consumer Guide via the Internet Archive. FWIW, if an album is not an honorable mention, I do change the link, as I believe the full Consumer Guide page is preferable.  AstonishingTunesAdmirer  連絡 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, I've read him since the late 1990s and own all his books. You can always just write about the honorable mention in the prose if citing VV--most of our short album articles are already ratings-heavy, prose-poor. Frankly, citing "Robert Christgau" is the easiest, clearest, and most straightforward at this late date. I'm not sure that changing something just to change it is necessary editing, and there may be some occasional pushback if the citation isn't accurate. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Writing about the stars without the source supporting it would violate WP:V. As far as I can see, there are only 2 places that show these stars: the book and artist pages on Christgau's website. Unless you mean removing the rating from the rating template and writing about it in prose, but I don't think that's ideal either, as there is a rating (even if it's assigned retrospectively).  AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 17:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry we keep misunderstanding each other. What I mean is, if citing VV, just write about it in the prose, without any kind of rating. If you want to keep a rating, cite his book or "him"/"his site" ... and therein lies the confusion. Again, I think "Robert Christgau", under C, is the best and clearest option, with the term referring to the journalist who has had some kind of a "guide" for around 50+ years, in 8, 9, 10, or however many outlets. Caro7200 (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Correction: if the rating is an honorable mention. There should be no issues with letter gradings.  AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 18:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It goes under "C" for sure. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Release history table discussion
There have been multiple ongoing discussions regarding the release history section of album articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice the past few months. I have just launched one, Getting rid of "Release history" tables, in which I propose deleting the section altogether. Given how much participation the discussions have had so far, I can imagine there being a lot more for this one, and it even potentially evolving into an RfC if need be, so I'm leaving an invite to such participation here. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 04:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Removal of undiscussed/underdiscussed sources
I added a review from Spectrum Culture to Burnout (EP) earlier, to which Koavf responded with this notice on my talk page telling me to remove it because it isn't listed at RSMUSIC. I disagreed with Justin, and seeing that the discussion was going nowhere and not particularly healthy for either of us, I'm bringing it here. Should this review (or any review from an undiscussed/underdiscussed source) be removed without consensus for its inclusion? Or is it fine as is until proven otherwise? The latter is the way I've been operating for a long time (including multiple occasions where I've sourced from Spectrum Culture specifically), and I'm sure many other editors have been as well. But does this behavior need to change? QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 05:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * See also two times when it was discussed, including one where I was the person asking for it to be added: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_62, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_67
 * ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm indifferent to its use, and anyone is free to be WP:BOLD and challenge things, but not being on WP:RSMUSIC shouldn't be an auto-revert unless its actively on WP:NOTRSMUSIC. Sergecross73   msg me  12:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The WP:RSMUSIC list isn't exhaustive, turning it into a whitelist isn't right IMO. Certainly not while it takes several attempts to add a single site to the list. As for Spectrum Culture, they have an editorial team, which includes writers who previously appeared in Spin magazine, Consequence, PopMatters, Slant Magazine, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune.  AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 06:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for what it's worth, I do believe Spectrum Culture should be in the list, as I also said in one of the discussions Justin linked above. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 09:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "The WP:RSMUSIC list isn't exhaustive, turning it into a whitelist isn't right"
 * Seconding this 1000%. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * These are two different issues: 1.) should Spectrum Culture be used as a source (and therefore added to the list) and 2.) should we use sources that aren't on the list? What say you about #1? ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you holding an issue hostage? Answer to #2 is a yes. Only forbidden sources are on the unreliable list.  Answer to #1 is not a yes or a no, it is a yes and a no.  Yes, you can use Spectrum Culture as a source. No, that does not qualify it for the Reliable Source list without analysis and a vote. We can turn this around too.  If we can't use it as a source, does it automatically go on the unreliable list?  I would say that items on the unreliable list also need a discussion and a vote.  My suggestion is to not revert sourced citations that are not specifically listed as unreliable, and if a source causes you heartburn, propose it here as a title to add to the unreliable list. Mburrell (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Holding an issue hostage? No. I'm trying to get clarity on what your proposal is. To answer your question, yes, we should assume that something published on the Internet is unreliable until we know otherwise. As for your suggestion, maybe you haven't actually read the thread that we're in, because I have proposed the said source should be added to the reliable list. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * First, this is not my proposal. Second, of course I have read the article. You are trying to force Spectrum Culture onto the reliable list, or won't let anyone use it for a citation.  I never implied or stated that you asked for it to be on the unreliable list.  I was just turning your argument around. You state that any citation used must be then reliable, thus, it must be included in the reliable list by default. I had stated that if I looked at it the other way, any citation refused must be unreliable, and thus must be included in the unreliable list.  I was using this as an example of a bad argument, because of course one would not automatically put a refused citation on the unreliable list, which then leads to the realization that of course, one would not put a used citation automatically on the reliable list.  There is a procedure to get a citation on the reliable list.  It can be used for Spectrum Culture.  If the procedure fails to get it on the list, then it is not inherently reliable, but also it is not inherently unreliable.  So yes, let other people use the source unless you can actually prove it is unreliable. Mburrell (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You have the direction of causality backwards and are making up things about my perspective. Either way, I'm just trying to clarify what your perspective is and the assumption that sources are reliable until you know otherwise is the opposite of what WP:RS is. We should assume that and need to and we certainly must not assume the inverse where sources are just assumed to be reliable ipso facto. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. So if a source is not inherently unreliable, leave it in a citation, don't just remove it. I am glad we are on the same page. Mburrell (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did not read your post thoroughly, I agreed that citations were not inherently reliable, but that is not what you said. Let's just leave it that I cannot agree with your position, I have clearly stated my argument two times and I don't understand how it is not clear with you.  So, I am clearly stating that if a source is not known to be unreliable, go ahead and use it, and if someone can then show it is unreliable, state the reasons why it is unreliable when you remove it.  As others have said, the Reliable List is not a whitelist of the only acceptable sources. Mburrell (talk)
 * You did not read what I wrote. I just wrote: we should assume that sources are unreliable until we know otherwise and you wrote the exact inverse. Is this a joke? It seems like it is because literally your last edit was removing valid sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_2024_albums&diff=prev&oldid=1233895068. If you are not being a serious person, why are you here? ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, don't understand you as an editor. Let's just leave it that I am serious about my edits, you are serious about your edits, we both deserve to be here, and we think differently.  Please do not go into ad hominem attacks and assume I am joking or that I am throwing out disruptive edits.  I find that approach offensive and non-collaborative.  Please back off and think about how your comments may be taken before posting something that seems like an attack.Mburrell (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Samesies. The comment you struck (thank you for doing that) seemed like pure provocation for the purpose of being... something? But since you evidently misread me and maybe somehow I'm being unclear, then that's a perfectly plausible explanation. Anyway. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The removal of sources in that instance was because the listed releases have articles which display their own clear notability. We do that for all of the Category:Lists of albums by release date pages because of concerns regarding the size of and number of templates in the list. Mburrell's edit there is perfectly valid and standard practice for those lists which we've been doing for multiple years now. Nothing unserious about it. And I think you're misunderstanding their point by stating the inverse; I believe they are saying that if what you say is held to be true, then the inverse should be as well, as to call out the absurdity of the notion. i.e. They disagree with the idea that the source should be removed. I don't see anything that reads as intentionally provocational here. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 14:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is not absurd to say "Sources should be assumed to be unreliable until we know otherwise" but it is absurd to say "sources should be assumed to be reliable until we know otherwise". Additionally, the comment he left here was "if a source is not inherently unreliable, leave it in a citation, don't just remove it" and then immediately went to an article and removed citations that were made up of reliable sources. I hope you can see how that is confounding. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well maybe Mburrell does think it's absurd to assume unreliability. That seems like a potentially overly strict practice to me. And who says anything was assumed in the first place? In this case, we've even discussed the reliability of the source before, so there's no assumptions being made. And Mburrell used the term "self-notable" in the edit summary, which I like to think is fairly self-explanatory given the content of the edit. I guess it could be potentially confusing to some, but I would hope experienced editors could figure it out themselves instead of calling it out mid-discussion in an accusatory fashion without any context. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 14:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the analysis and to him for giving his perspective. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that WP:RSMUSIC should be used as a sufficient criterion for reliability, but not as a necessary one. That is:
 * Being listed at WP:RSMUSIC implies reliability (which is a spectrum, and each source has its own notes there).
 * Being listed at WP:NOTRSMUSIC implies unreliability.
 * Being unlisted doesn't imply anything - I make no assumption either way. We as editors, when using such sources, should be able to make those judgements. In particular, a source that has been discussed here, but for which no consensus was reached, is not automatically unreliable.
 * I acknowledge the argument that if a source is reliable, it should be included at WP:RSMUSIC. But the practical reality is that sometimes discussions here don't reach a "consensus-like" threshold, or take several attempts to do so. Even more so if a source is harder to access, e.g. by being mostly offline or in a different language. GanzKnusper (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is generally how it has functioned historically, and largely how other WikiProjects handle their similar lists. Some of it is contextual - it doesn't take a full investigation to find that "FooFightersWikia" or "FrankiePoopz420.blogspot" are unreliable sources, but other publications that aren't so obviously shouldn't be rejected so immediately. Sergecross73   msg me  16:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't really engaged with this site since I asked about it four years ago--Richard probably said it best when he noted that farming out freelancing is how things are going (along with memoir/autobiographical-heavy criticism and constant listicle/retrospective stuff like "The 15 best shoegaze albums of 1992" or "The most awesome albums from the first 7.23 weeks of 2023"). ATA noted SC's editorial page and where some of its contributors have published; I sympathize with Justin, as Bill Cooper, the reviewer of Burnout, has a poor (nonexistent?) resume, and ends his review with "Production-wise, this album sounds much cleaner and articulate than LOUDMOUTH and is a lot more fun to boot. It doesn’t always hit, but maybe it doesn’t need to. If you don’t like a song, you’re onto the next before you know it." Incisive!--but there have been AllMusic, etc., reviews along similar lines. And "Contributor X has published in Salon" could very well mean that Contributor X has only published in Salon... It's better that regular editors proactively ask about non-listed sources if they are using them more than a couple of times. Another problem is great-looking sites, like The Vinyl District or Vinyl Me, Please, where the primary commerciality overwhelms everything (in the case of The Vinyl District, its long reviews of older albums always just seem like syntheses of decades of writing that never add up to anything fresh or anything that isn't already mentioned in the WP article on, as an example, Exile on Main Street). Caro7200 (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiwibloggs
I wholeheartedly believe this source that covers ESC and related subjects is reliable despite it being a blog as the founder and editor-in-chief used to work for Time magazine. — lunaeclipse  (talk)  16:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * They're also regularly cited and covered by mainstream press. I'd say they're reliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Americana Highways and No Depression
Actually a bit surprised that neither of these publications are listed at RSMUSIC. As far as I'm aware, they're both plenty reliable and typically treated as such. They're certainly both used plenty (at least 110 for AH and 1,300 for ND). This ten-year-old discussion mentions ND twice as a reliable source in favor of writers who also worked at About.com (we use this same table on the RSMUSIC page in clarifying our stance on that publication). Seems like there's probably a strong case here, or at least one for ND. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 18:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * As someone who has routinely added No Depression and who makes it a point to not add sources that aren't on our list, I stand here looking a fool. I agree with adding it to the list for sure. I'm less familiar with the other. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of adding No Depression to RSMUSIC. I don't know enough about Americana Highways to give an opinion; their call for writers should be relevant. GanzKnusper (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

AllMusic
Just a warning that AllMovie got rid of their reviews recently and now uses descriptions from Wikipedia, so the same might be in store for AllMusic. Mika1h (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Wow, I hope that doesn't happen. Allmusic is probably one of the most used sources for musician and album Wikipedia articles, especially lesser known ones. Sergecross73   msg me  11:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was told links that are already in articles get archived automatically, so it shouldn't that big of an issue for them. I'm more worried about reviews for albums that don't have articles. Not sure if there is a way to make sure these get archived.  AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 12:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations
Opinions needed, please: Talk:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. (Not entirely on-topic for WP:ALBUMS I know, but this project is a reliable resource for editors experienced in writing about musicians.] Popcornfud (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * (I do the same thing for anything remotely related to music since WP:ALBUMS is so much more active than the other music Wikiprojects.) Sergecross73   msg me  16:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Check GAN
Since the people involved in the discussion are not responding, can anyone check the page Afrique Victime? I want to re-nominate it to hopefully be a good article, since this is the only thing which needs to be done to nominate the page, all help will be appreciated!

Thanks,  03:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Anthony Fantano/The Needle Drop (probably) becoming reliable?
The Internet's busiest music nerd just did an entire overhaul of his website and is now looking for writers for breaking news related to music. This really doesn't mean much right now, but will this affect TND's reliability in the long run? — lunaeclipse  (talk)  22:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The announcement mentions that there'll be no reviews or features, just news coverage, so this probably won't make much of a difference regarding Fantano's reviews. Those will probably be separate from this and unchanged, so everything that's been said about him previously still applies, and we have plenty of reliable publications covering music news so I wouldn't expect much need for it. On top of that, we don't know who's running the show or what writers will be involved (they could all end up being Fantano fans for all we know) so the potential for reliability is up in the air. I wouldn't get my hopes up too much about this. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 23:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Forgive me as I'm not very smart, but did you mean to link to Melon? ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Koavf, yes. That was a horrible attempt at making an inside joke. — lunaeclipse  (talk)  00:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Have at it and enjoy, friend. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone once called him Melon (presumably because his bald head looks like one) and ever since his fans call him that. Eventually, he also started using this nickname.  AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 08:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being patient with us out-of-step xennials. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)