Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 48

Article on a notable bootleg release
I'd like to write an article on a 1990s bootleg release titled Beware of ABKCO!, which consists of George Harrison running through some songs under consideration for his 1970 triple album All Things Must Pass. He's at Abbey Road, playing them for co-producer Phil Spector the day before the full sessions begin. The bootleg gets a fair amount of attention from Harrison biographers and Beatles authors (in the latter category, I'm thinking of Madinger & Easter's Eight Arms to Hold You and Bruce Spizer's The Beatles Solo on Apple Records), and it merits an article on AllMusic by Richie Unterberger.

What attracts me to having a wikipedia article about the bootleg is that six of the compositions (let alone these particular recordings) have never turned up on any official Harrison release; on wikipedia, those song titles currently redirect to All Things Must Pass, but an article dedicated to the run-through tape will reduce the amount of text needed under the album article's "Demo tracks and outtakes" subsection. On this point, even though we have dedicated song articles for all of the original album's disc 1 and 2 songs ("bonus" disc 3 being the mostly instrumental Apple Jam), there are currently 16 song/track redirects to the album article.

All I can think of in the way of precedents is A Toot and a Snore in '74, which captures a Los Angeles jam session by Lennon, McCartney and others. While this 1974 event undoubtedly has greater historical significance than Harrison's solo performance, I'd argue that of the two unofficial musical documents, Beware of ABKCO! is considerably better known than Toot. Has anyone got any thoughts on this – is it acceptable to have an article on the Harrison bootleg? Are there more precedents perhaps?

As an alternative, I've been considering an article titled something like: Outtakes and unreleased songs from George Harrison's All Things Must Pass. That would cover Beware of ABKCO!, perhaps include more detail on Apple Jam also, and allow for further cuts to ATMP/Demo tracks & outtakes – because discussion of songs such as "Dehradun" and "Gopala Krishna" would have a new home, leaving just a brief mention of those songs in the album article. Again, any thoughts, examples of comparable situations, etc, would be welcome. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can try looking for George Harrison interviews that mention those outtakes/unreleased songs. }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 22:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As it relates to All Things Must Pass, a starting point would be to add some information into that article, extending it into a section when needed. At that point you could look at what you have, and what is available, and see if it would be appropriate to split off the bulk of the material into a standalone article, leaving behind a summary in the ATMP article, and a link to the new article.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the above. I see what you mean, SilkTork, I may well do that. Although, I'm pretty confident there's enough information to warrant a separate article, so it's difficult to get my head around the idea of adding more to ATMP first. I guess right now I'm keen to ensure it's acceptable to have an article about a bootleg release, if I did decide to go for a more specific piece (Beware of ABKCO!) rather than the wider-scope one (Outtakes and unreleased songs ...). I seem to recall there being some objections to A Toot and a Snore in '74, for instance. JG66 (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've written a few bootleg album articles - Ultra Rare Trax, Golden Eggs, The Dark Side of the Moo and (infamously) Elvis' Greatest Shit to name but four, and I basically take the line that WP:NMUSIC does not apply to any of them and they have to pass WP:GNG on their own merits to get an article. You'll need to say why the bootleg was made, who was responsible, whether or not it was officially released later and if so, how it compares, the reviews and reception, and the reaction from the artist if known. Clinton Heylin's bootleg books are good sources, and go into substantial depth to do the content, but I generally try and make sure there are at least two other sources, one of which can be an Allmusic professional view. Obviously the more sources you have, the better the article is, and the less likely somebody might smell a rat and try to AfD it. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's enlightening – thank you. I'm confident that anything I've got planned for Beware of ABKCO! satisfies WP:GNG and other criteria you mention. (On that point, A Toot and a Snore in '74 looks decidedly shaky, it seems.)


 * Perhaps I'm being too ambitious, but I still warm to the idea of making the new article more wide-ranging – Outtakes and unreleased songs from George Harrison's All Things Must Pass, or something – of which the Beware ...! boot would be a major part. But those examples you've supplied make it easy to get there in stages, starting with an article dedicated to one particular bootleg. JG66 (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The main article, bootleg recording still needs a lot of work. I've done quite a bit but there's a whole missing section on how mixtapes and mashups relate to bootlegs, as there is some correlation between them. In terms of other articles that could be written, there's the notorious The Beatles vs. the Third Reich (an alternative 1962 Star Club set, currently a redirect) and the 1970/71 Pink Floyd "In Concert" sessions with John Peel for the BBC - if ever a bootleg should be released officially, it's that one, as in recent years, bootleggers have done a seriously good remastering job on it. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   19:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: remove the attention flag from WPBannerMeta
ee the discussion here. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Arena rock - Genre or not?
See discussion here. Johnny338 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

answers.com
album rating by answers.com is unreliable sources? and can it be use in Good and Featured aticles? it using allmusic database for review, but it's rating is diffrent. see lz2for example Sandman q23 (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely unreliable. It mirrors AllMusic and Wikipedia. For the review, just cite AllMusic itself. Adabow (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Laut.de
Would http://www.laut.de be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? I tried citing it in an article, but the source was challenged by another editor. I know it's a non-English source, but they are allowed to be cited to a certain extent. Kokoro20 (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I see no proof that their writers are professional journalists known in their field or have worked at other major publications and that they have an editorial staff that is known for fact checking. To whoever comments here, keep in mind they are being used to cite a genre for an album, so the source/writer should be of high quality if we are going to take their subjective opinion and add it to the infobox. STATic message me!   19:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.laut.de/_/Impressum lists the staff and editors while http://www.laut.de/_/AGB seems to imply that there is no editorial oversight. It's not clear to me what affiliation they have with http://www.laut.ag/ so I can't really determine whether they meet RS or not. What does the German project say about them? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have actually made a thread there too: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany
 * Two people have replied, and both of them leaned towards it being reliable. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know why you have to resort to a possibly-questionable foreign-language source to support a genre (alternative metal) for an album by a rather well-known band? If the album really is that genre, surely there are several English reliable sources supporting that? If this is the only source calling them that genre, and most other sources do not, this is probably an indication that listing that genre (especially in the infobox) is giving undue weight to that genre. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If this is the only source using it, and this is the sort of album that garners crazy amounts of coverage, then I'm not sure it warrants a mention. It'd be more of an outlier stance... Sergecross73   msg me  00:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there's currently not very many professional English language reviews for the album available (since it has not yet officially been released in the US or UK). When I was searching for reviews on Google, I came across Laut.de, and since that mentioned alternative metal, I decided to cite it. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then maybe it's worth waiting until more reviews and articles about the album come out as it is released. Wikipedia is in no hurry to have the article completed right away. You might find more articles/reviews calling it "alternative metal", or you might find that very few or none call it that, and decide its not worth including. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am waiting. But still, I would like a consensus as to whether or not Laut.de is reliable, just in case. Kokoro20 (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Albums At Wikimania 2014
Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made. Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Earth Music 1 Album
Released in 1994 by Backdoor records of the Philippines. A recording of the different indigenous instruments from the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.58.197 (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Songs of the Earth
an album that features the songs of Ato Mariano a musician composer from Mindanao. Released in 1995 in Manila.--121.54.58.197 (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, 121.54.58.197. I notice that Ato Mariano, the artist for this album and the one you listed above, does not himself have an article, but that you have created a draft for one. I think that it would be best to incorporate information on these albums into your draft article, until there is enough material and demonstrated notability to justify separate album articles. I've added a few refs and info to your Ato Mariano draft, but I think more substantial coverage from independent reliable sources needs to be found before it is ready to be published as a WP article. If I can help answer any questions, please feel free to post at my talk page. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Garbage (album)
There is edit warring and genre conversation going on at Garbage (album) talk page. Any further input would be greatly appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Review source: Idolator

 * Idolator.com

Used prominently on music good articles, Idolator is a music "blog" (more in the style of a news blog) which features reviews of songs and albums, coverage on music releases and pop artists' other ventures; gossip and tabloid-y content has been posted in the past but there's almost no trace of it now. For some reason, it is almost always removed from WP:FAs though no signs of non-reliability have been given.


 * Idolator is published by Spin Media, which also owns PopMatters, Spin, Stereogum, AbsolutePunk, etc.


 * As has wrote, the website's credibility has already been proved, as it features video/written interviews with reputable artists like Lily Allen, Kylie Minogue, Ciara; for example, an interview the website did with Kodaline was posted on their label's website (RCA website)


 * This website was used for a Metacritic post where publications' top 10 lists of 2012 albums were rounded up to give a definitive top 10 with the most mentioned albums in those publications' lists. (here)


 * The site has been discussed on The Hollywood Reporter (here) and The New York Times (here)
 * Idolator's senior editor Sam Lansky has worked for various reliable publications, including The Atlantic (link), Time (link), New York (link), Esquire (link), Grantland (link) and Rolling Stone (link); he also signed a book deal with Gallery Books ([according to The Hollywood Reporter http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/earshot/idolators-sam-lansky-signs-book-662382]).

I also opened a discussion about the source in WP:RSN which has been archived and users who commented on it agreed that it was reliable. ([ here]) This discussion is to hopefully add it to WP:ALBUM/SOURCES and thus determine its reliability (or not). —  prism   △  11:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I believe Idolator can be listed as a reliable source for albums/singles. Their reliability, original content and factual accuracy passes them as reliable source. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 12:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * They may have been gossip-y in the past, but have upped their game since. Definitely worthy of being added on the "recommended" list for WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 14:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I find Idolator useful since it covers a lot of things. As for its reviews, I find them okay although at times I find them to be a bit biased, but that's probably just me. Okay from my side. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, reviews are supposed to be biased, that's why they are reviews.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 16:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From the evidence presented here, I'd agree that it passes RS and support adding it to our list. User:XXSNUGGUMSXX says above that they used to be "gossip-y"; should we add a restriction of a date/year for information (like we do for Metal Storm, "Do not use...staff reviews from before 2009")? (I know nothing of this site, so I'll leave it up to others to decide if this is necessary, and if so, to what year/date). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, per the clearly-established credibility presented by the nominator. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wasn't there a discussion previously on the use of Idolator?  livelikemusic ''' my talk page! 01:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If any restrictions, I would say "do not use for celebrity dating reports" since in the past the gossip I saw pertained to that. Seeing to it that the site is mainly used for music reviews, shouldn't be much of a problem anyway. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 03:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

AlreadyHeard.com
Already Heard is a website that reports on band activity, to me personally It looks pretty decent, it has a load of staff including writers and photographers and has a lot of coverage, for example I am currently writing a draft for an upcoming Mallory Knox album and one of the points is referenced by one of the bands Facebook posts which I want to replace, I want to use this article as the reference: I personally believe this looks pretty good however as usual I like to check with others in case it is in fact regarded unreliable. Please share your opinions, thank you. 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looking at the editor's LinkedIn profile, it seems he started the site basically as a fan blog... the question is whether it has now developed into a reliable music website. I'm finding it hard to find proof that any of the staff are full-time paid writers (the editor himself seems to only work there on a part-time basis in between working at a ticketing agency) and don't just contribute for the love of the genre. Richard3120 (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to find out? It seems reliable to me but then again that could just be me, I still have trouble's identifying reliable sources as it seems to be different from person to person, pretty much why I consult the tables on this article. 22:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since when do the writers have to be "full-time paid writers?" Volunteer staff is OK too. The better question is, is there editorial oversight, and the source have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 22:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, what I meant was ALL the staff appear to be volunteers, including the founder and editor – is that still allowable under Wikipedia rules? Richard3120 (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think so, if it is professionally quality material.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 23:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you say this website is? And should it be added to the table of online reliable sources? 23:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

About.com
Should this even be listed as a source to avoid? Even though the site has non-professional reviewers, it does also have professional reviewers (like Tim Grierson, who is from Blender and Revolver, and Chad Bowar, who is from Loudwire), just like Sputnikmusic. If it is to stay in the sources to avoid list, it should also be in the recommended sources list for clarification, just like Sputnikmusic. Also, the link in mentioned in the list is to a thread where someone clearly says that opinions on the site's reliability has been mixed, judging on past discussions, so there hasn't even been a consensus that it's never reliable. I've seen people removing About.com from articles lately, saying it's not reliable and stuff (regardless of the author), so I thought of bringing this to discussion. Kokoro20 (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally feel About.com's music reviews are pretty nice and well made, for example this review (includes a line "while 'Secret' drops in a refrain from Lisa Lisa and Cult Jam with Full Force's 'I Wonder If I Take You Home' that conducts a dance-pop dialogue across almost 20 years," which particularly impressed me). The writer of this review, Jason Shawhan, is a member of the Southeastern Film Critics Association and has contributed to The Observer (according to Indiewire - here). For release dates etc. I might say that About.com is not the best go-to website. However, I don't think it should be listed as a source to avoid, especially for musical articles. Release dates, factual stuff - No; Reviews and critical opinions - Yes. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for a while, I assumed About.com was always reliable, in fact, until I seen people arguing otherwise, and pointed out that it also has non-professional reviewers. Would you say it should be removed from the list altogether, or have a better clarification? Kokoro20 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Checklist - WP:VG has discussed it 14 times and still not come to a conclusion on it. It should be "situational" at at best, due to the large variety of writers they have, experienced and not. Sergecross73   msg me  21:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Should we have a situational section here too, for sites like About.com and Sputnikmusic? Kokoro20 (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * At the Christian Music project we have a number that require care. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources. However, the staff reviews for most of the sources there are very clearly marked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Same with WPVG. It's probably a good idea, they're not all cut and dry. Sergecross73   msg me  22:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A frequent name I've seen from About.com is Bill Lamb. As will tell you, Lamb is not a professional music critic. I'm generally skeptical of the site even outside of reviews, as much of its content is user-generated and/or unprofessional. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 08:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be appropriate to compile a list of reliable About.com writers. Mark Edward Nero is another. Adabow (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be a good idea. So far, we have Tim Grierson, Chad Bowar and Mark Edward Nero as reliable authors. Who else? We should probably get a consensus about each common author (or at least ones who are disputed, like Bill Lamb) for music articles to try and put the debates for About.com's reliabillity to rest, at least when it comes to the music articles here. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Another reliable critic, like I mentioned earlier, is Jason Shawhan. I think we should prepare a table of the music critics of the site and then judge who all are reliable. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Table of critics
I have made this test table. Feel free to improve it. Funny that when I browsed through the reviews I was unable to find reviews by Shawhan etc. Kindly add any reviewer I missed --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I started up with a few. Anyone else? Kokoro20 (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we also have a reasoning for the reviewers who should not be considered reliable? Kokoro20 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. And please include sources for supporting the claims. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When the table is finished, how should we incorporate the list of authors to avoid? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the entire table, constituting of both the reliable and unreliable editors should form a section at WikiProject Albums/Sources --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Or maybe we could just include a link to this thread under the "notes" part. Also, it looks the whole table is filled out now. Would everyone agree with how its filled out? Kokoro20 (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure about linking, since this thread will eventually be archived and a directed table excerpt is more accessible. Let's just copy paste this table there once, , and any editor interested and involved in this discussion approves this table. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For those listed under "maybe", my only suggestion would be to get more definitive answers if possible. Otherwise, good to go. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was hoping some other editor suggested what to do with the Maybe cells. I tried my best to find stuff about these "maybe" editors, but so fat nothing. I believe we will have to make our own judgement whether these particular editors are reliable, by analysing their reviews maybe. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So, should it be ready now? Kokoro20 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not yet. The "maybe"s need to be sorted out first. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can someone please take the initiative to do so? I am unable to. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole table should not be copied over, the link can easily be changed to its place in the archive, once this discussion is archived. I agree with Snuggums, we should not include "maybes", we should have a definitive yes or no. Also are there not much more writers than this? STATic message me!   22:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If the maybes cannot be classed as reliable or unreliable, then I would conservatively have them as unreliable. We can always have discussions to change their status. Same thing goes for any writers who are not currently listed; a discussion can be had to determine their reliability. Adabow (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I have changed the "Maybe(s)" to "No(s)." Also, if anyone finds a music editor missing from this table, kindly add them with a suitably sourced judgement regarding their reliability. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the reasoning for the former "maybes" now be changed too? Kokoro20 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay then. I'll go ahead and put out a link to this thread at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Swapping Loudwire for Metal Storm & Punknews.org
Hi. Wanted to propose adding Loudwire to the list of sources. Loudwire is a website which daily updates news on rock and heavy metal and I find it very useful for information on lesser known bands. It has professional editorial staff, and it looks like a high-standard source. It features numerous interviews and album reviews, and I considered it essential for albums of this genre. On the other hand, Metal Storm and Punknews are largely user-edited websites, and there are few posts that you'll find appropriate for album articles. I think their inclusion on the list can be misleading to editors less involved in album articles to a certain degree.--Retrohead (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we stop hiding track lists
It seems standard now for editors to add bonus tracks as a hidden box on album articles, for example Exodus. I find it anoying and ugly, why hide the Sessions with Lee Perry, July / August 1977 tracks? It does also seem to contavene Scrolling lists and collapsible content: "Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, image galleries, and image captions." — 86.171.14.51 (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about bonus tracks – I would imagine that in the case of the above album and various others, editors have done it to stop the track listing section becoming a very long list, due to the number of reissues. Personally I would be looking at ways to try and cut down the track listings and stop unnecessary repetition: for instance the first hidden box, "Exodus Remastered" just duplicates the original track listing above it... I'd be inclined to reorder everything and trying to make it easier to follow so you can see eactly what the difference is between the various reissues. Richard3120 (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a long discussion about this at the infobox and it was decided that its not key information and so does not contravene COLLAPSE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Walter, just for the sake of clarification and so that everyone else is aware of it, I assume you mean this discussion: Template talk:Track listing Richard3120 (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree, but apparently there are times when track listings are better off collapsed (usually in an article about another subject, which includes a soundtrack section, such as video game articles). But for albums, I agree, there are very few cases where collapsing the track listings is a good idea. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on singular bonus tracks, but very strongly in favor of continuing to collapse these alternate/re-release track listings where it's 99% the same track list and just an extra track tacked on, or a few songs rearranged in order. That sort of thing just takes up a lot of space and makes the track lusts look a lot longer/complicated than they really are. Sergecross73   msg me  00:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at Exodus I think it could be simplified to avoid repetion anyway – I agree with the original complaint, it's ridiculous to collapse the track listing halfway through a disc, as has been done with the Lee Perry sessions. I was going to reduce it down to something like this at the top of my sandbox – it's not perfect but it gets rid of all the repetition and nothing has been collapsed. Richard3120 (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments welcome
Hi WikiProject, I'm hoping to get some comments at Talk:List of double albums. A New Jersey-based IP with a history of disruptive edits, and a user account with a history of disruptive edits, (they are likely the same actor,) have been adding "Can fit on one CD" to this list of double albums. Frankly, I don't see the value of this, as it appears to be crufty, and is comprised entirely of original research, ("I did the math & CD'S Hold up to 79:57 of music. So back off.") and I was hoping to get some input from the community. I don't take their positions seriously since they have been disruptive, and I doubt they'll put together a coherent rebuttal, but I'm hoping to establish consensus one way or another, even if my instinct is wrong about the usefulness of the content. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum I've had to report the user and IP to ANI, so comments may not be necessary, unless you feel so inclined. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Dummy
Could we add Dummy to a list of sources? Their about us section seems legit to me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me, too. I remember Jockey Slut from back in the day, and Dummy was essentially started by those same guys. I think they can be classed as a WP:RS, though we ought to be cautious if they ever review stuff from their own Dummy Records label, as this would obviously not be an independent view. — sparklism hey! 10:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sparklism – Jockey Slut was a well-respected music magazine during dance music's 1990s heyday, and looking at Dummy's website I recognise at least one name among the contributors, Adam Harper, who has been published in The Fader, The Wire and Tiny Mix Tapes, as well as a book, Infinite Music. So I see no reason not to accept them as a source. Richard3120 (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses! I'll add it now. That was easy! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ratings issues
I was just taking a look at So Tonight That I Might See (I can't believe this is a stub) when I noticed that the link to the Rolling Stones rating was broken. Of course, I popped that sucker into archive.org and got the old link.  However, should the archive link be used in the ratings, or is there a way to find it on the current site? I could be wrong, but has RS paywalled all their old archival articles? Any help is appreciated, as this could have an impact on many album articles. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Provide an inline citation, not a simple link. For an example see Beyoncé (album). I'm not sure but I think RS is pretty quick at removing articles from its free website. Adabow (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that, but that wasn't my question. This is an older article that hasn't been edited much, so it is using the older inline external link style that we used prior to using reflist generated links.  In any case, that's not the issue under discussion.  What I'm asking is, 1) do you know if older RS reviews have gone behind a paywall in the last several years?  If so,  should we be updating them with archive.org links or not? Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about RS pulling free access to its older material but it would surprise me. Re (2): absolutely. Adding archives of URLs, both dead and live, is recommended as both a preventative and a patching measure. Adabow (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sadly I've come across quite a few dead links to RS album reviews during my editing, so I can only conclude that RS has indeed restricted a lot of what was previously available free material. As a British-based editor, access to RS is pretty limited here: it isn't widely available in the UK in print form and although there is a decent collection of old copies in the British Library in London, many copies are missing. Therefore I haven't been able to update as many of the dead links as I would have liked to. Richard3120 (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to the rhyme or reason. It looks like all articles prior to 20xx have been paywalled.  This means that hundreds, perhaps thousands of album-related articles currently have broken links to RS reviews.  Replacing them with archival URLs is one solution, but I'm not certain it is acceptable. I seem to remember that editors are discouraged from linking directly to archival copyrighted content, which means it is possible that replacing the dead links with archive.org links might be unacceptable.  We really need to get clarification on this. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have any understanding of the legal status of such archives (perhaps it is protected as fair use?), but WP:link rot endorses the use of the Wayback Machine and WebCite. These services are linked to very frequently across Wikipedia articles. Another service, archive.is/archive.today is currently controversial and not recommended. Adabow (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (Assuming the use of Template:Cite web) Make sure to include the original URL in the "url=" parameter and use "archiveurl=" for the archive link, then set "deadurl=yes" so that the archive URL is used when someone clicks on the reference link. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this isn't a simple case of a dead link. This is a case of a music magazine purposefully moving their archival material behind a paywall for subscribers.  WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER discuss these issues.  COPYLINK says "The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time." That sounds reasonable to me, in the sense that these paywalled articles were once widely available. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Musichel.com
Musichel is an entertainment weblog that specialises in pop culture. First incepted in October 2012, it has since flourished into a global pop culture website. It has featured several high-profile celebrities on its blog such as Jake T. Austin, R5, John Barrowman and Olivia Holt and has several reviews of music and films. I personally know a lot of teen-boppers who frequent this site for reviews and articles on young stars. While I do know the founder of this website, I feel that it is reliable, unbiased, accurate and should be considered for this list.


 * The official websites of R5, Jake Short, Austin North, Ashlee Keating and more have re-posted articles originally published on Musichel.
 * British boy-band Union J gave Musichel a shout-out for its anniversary in 2013.
 * Hollywood Records band R5 features a quote from the founder of Musichel on their front page.
 * The founder and main writer of Musichel also writes for major U.S. entertainment website Starpulse and also works with LAMC Productions, a renowned concert production company in Asia.
 * Musichel has reviewed music albums including In Technicolor by Jesse McCartney and Louder by R5. Concert reviews published on the website include concerts by Taylor Swift, Jay Sean, Demi Lovato and Aerosmith. Apart from music, the blog has also reviewed films the likes of The Amazing Spider-Man, X-Men: Days of Future Past and The Fault in Our Stars.
 * A quote from Austin Mahone's interview with Musichel was featured in the pop star's published biography Austin Mahone: Startin' Something Spectacular.
 * Musichel has been recognized and mentioned on Twitter by stars like Maia Mitchell, Olivia Holt, Jay Sean and Kira Kosarin.
 * A lot of these seem a bit self-reflexive to me: the shout-out from Union J is a 12-second clip of them wishing the website a happy anniversary, and is published on Musichel's own YouTube channel. The quote on R5's front page is simply lifted directly from the review of their first album on the Musichel website – I'm not sure how Wikipedia would view, for example, the standard one-line quotes on movie posters as justifying that site as a source of good reviews. The quote in Austin Mahone's book is simply the line, "I can't wait to meet all my fans in other countries", taken from a Musichel interview with him – that doesn't really help me see how Musichel could be considered a verified source for album reviews.
 * The LinkedIn page of Rachel Ho (the founder) states that she is an intern with LAMC, which presumbly means she isn't a paid staff member and therefore her contributions from LAMC would not be valid. I'm not sure what her role is at Starpulse either: she is listed as a "contributing writer" and not under the list of editorial staff.
 * And if the site is unbiased, despite a large percentage of the site containing articles about R5 and Miss Ho admitting her love for the band, perhaps the user "Rho email" should not have been editing the Wikipedia articles about R5 and their Louder album. ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Married to the Mob Soundtrack
I don't know how to do it but can someone who knows what they're doing add the song Mambo Italiano by Rosemary Clooney to the soundtrack of the movie Married to the Mob? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxaxon2211 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was featured in the film but it doesn't appear on the soundtrack album. Richard3120 (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Gay publications as sources for reviews
Are predominantly LGBT-targeted sources reliable for album/music reviews and other content? (e.g.: Philadelphia Gay News, Frontiers, Instinct, Next Magazine) Are those reputable enough to be included on an FA?  pedro  &#124; talk  20:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's look at some links to said sources SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't recall ever coming across these services before, can you find some links of content you're referring to so I can take a look? WikiRedactor (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Me neither, just don't use sites like So So Gay. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If the reviewers are staff and professional, use them. If that can't be confirmed, don't use them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You can assess the work of the named reviewer, like we did for several About.com staff --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When it comes to interviews or something like that, I think we can consider the reports usable because they were done by a professional journalist and the articles have editorial oversight. As for album reviews, I wouldn't particularly use those unless there are other alternatives.--Retrohead (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was planning on using a review from Frontiers on Trouble, where there are only 5 reviews.  pedro  &#124; talk  19:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Calling Billboard magazine collectors
If anyone on Wiki has the following issues:


 * Billboard of 31 August 2013
 * Billboard of 7 September 2013

Could you check their "album reviews" sections for a review of Natalia Kills' album Trouble? I can't find those issues anywhere online. It would be a huge favor. Thank you in advance  pedro  &#124; talk  19:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Flatlists being imposed at Infobox musical artist
At Template talk:Infobox musical artist two editors have imposed what they believe to be a change to use flatlists rather than comma separated values to separate items. A full discussion should be had before changing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing but the Beat
The correct format for this album title really should be sorted out once and for all – it was suggested on the talk page as far back as 2011 that it should be formatted as Nothing But the Beat, which seems correct to me, and for the reasons suggested by the editor. Either way, it needs to be standardised: the article title uses "but" in lower case letters, while the article text uses upper case for both "But" and "The" (definitely wrong). i just wanted to run it by other editors to check I have interpreted the MOS correctly in this case, then I'll put it forward for a move request. Richard3120 (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing But the Beat looks correct to me, as 'but' is being used as a preposition rather than a conjunction in this case. That's my interpretation of the style guide for capitalization anyway. — sparklism hey! 14:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what was said back in 2011, and I agree with both of you. Richard3120 (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Billboard back issues available online
I just added a link to Billboard's own archive of scanned (and searchable) print back issues on the WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources page. The url is http://www.billboard.com/magazine-archive There are many missing issues, but I thought you guys might like to know :) Dcs002 (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dcs002! Some of them are also available in Google Books. pedro &#124; talk 11:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's identical to Google Books. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Adrian Denning and Common Sense Media
Was just tidying up the reviewer ratings in Lennon's Imagine, removing a non-staff Sputnik review, but the reviews by Adrian Denning and Common Sense Media remain there. Denning seems active currently and busy, and his opinions appear in several articles on Wikipedia. I imagine he may well have been discussed here in the past, maybe not … What do we think, is Denning an acceptable, reliable source? And Common Sense Media: is a "quality" rating (separate from their parental-guide score) acceptable in a table of reviewer ratings? Thanks, JG66 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Madonna box set
Hello, there is discussion whether we should include an article from Clash magazine as a review on the GA nominated article The Complete Studio Albums (1983 – 2008). I'm aware that Clash is an accepted review source, but not sure if the actual article is a review or not. Any thoughts on the topic would be welcome [Talk:The Complete Studio Albums (1983 – 2008) here]. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Using certification icons on Template:Certification Table Entry
There is a current discussion on whether or not the certifications should be used on the Template:Certification Table Entry. Erick (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Packaging/cover art for The Wall by Pink Floyd
On the talk page for The Wall I brought up an issue about the unique way the first edition LPs were packaged, with a large paper insert under the plastic wrap showing the Gerald Scarfe logo. (See Talk:The Wall.) I made mention of it in the Packaging section of the article, and it was deleted by another editor. No one has commented at all on the talk page. Originally the section said "The logo and band name are presented on a sticker," and I added "originally a paper insert inside the LP's plastic wrapping." The other editor has removed any mention now of any of that, with the comment (revert - it isn't necessary to describe every tiny detail), as well as other clarifying information that was requested in a "clarification needed" tag (as well as the tag itself), and the section now says more about Hipgnosis & Storm Thorgerson (controversy about why he wasn't involved with this album) and other Floyd covers than it does about packaging for The Wall. The other editor refuses to discuss the matter anywhere but his own user talk page, and he has suggested that won't last either. I reverted his deletions once twice (two each now) and asked him on his user talk page to discuss things, but he undid the reversion without any discussion on the talk page. I have the impression he wants things his way and is unwilling to share the process of editing this article. I'd appreciate comments on the talk page, and maybe a little advice, or support if you agree that the insert (or anything else) should be mentioned in that very small section. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would recommend finding a reliable source that discusses this paper insert, then re-add the information with that source. Currently you are adding original research, which should be removed until supported. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment! To clarify, all I added (and propose to add) was "originally a paper insert inside the LP's plastic wrapping." I guess I didn't see that as OR or even contentious. (The justification was WAY more than the proposed content.) I'll look for a RS that says that was the packaging though. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind
Somebody should do this, if the request was ok. -- Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 06:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:With the Beatles
I’m going to have this discussion closed soon, but I felt it would be a wiser option to advertise it more widely in the meantime. It’s been going on for several months now but I imagine I didn’t broadcast its existence as I needed to; any more input is greatly appreciated. If you have anything to add, please put it there, not here. Thank you.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  03:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Mike Oldfield 'Man on Rock' : 2014 Album : Spurious claim concerning instrumental pieces.
I don't know who the self appointed editor is to that page. But you or whoever it is that is posting - needs to stop posting claims that simply do not hold up when checked against the facts.

To suggest that 'Man on a Rock' is Oldfield's only second album where 'long' instrumental tracks are NOT included; is at best dubious (how do you define what is long or over long ?) and at worst completely false.

A quick check of Oldfield's discography shows that his 'Crisis' album of 1983 fits the criteria perfectly. There are no 'long' instrumentals in that album. Even QE2 from the year before fits the same claim : if you accept that one of the instrumentals is relatively short (when compared to Tubular bells) etc.

After Crisis was released : Oldfield produced numerous albums that were vocal orientated : aka songs.

So : please correct the claim or get rid of it : since it is effectively meaningless.


 * I think you'll find that Crises had an instrumental piece - "Taurus III", and a 20 minute+ piece which was mostly instrumental. Aside from Man on the Rocks the only other Oldfield album which is comprised of exclusively songs (with vocals) is Earth Moving.


 * Five Miles Out - Taurus II (instrumental), et. al.; Crises - Taurus III (instrumental), Crises (20 mins, mostly instrumental); Discovery - The Lake (instrumental); The Killing Fields - Instrumental Soundtrack; Islands - The Wind Chimes (instrumental); Earth Moving - 10 songs, no instrumentals; Man on the Rocks - 11 songs, no instrumentals

TubularWorld (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The Crisis main track was 20 minutes long and was interspersed with vocals by Oldfiled,

The extra length track you are referring to as 'Taurus 111' is a much later version issued by Mercury in 2013 : That had a length of 20 minutes.

However, I rule the 'Crisis' track out because it contains Oldfield lyrics.

Hope this helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.157.109 (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The statement at the top of the article is meant to indicate that this is only the second album of Oldfield's which has been composed of entirely what would be considered songs (pieces of music - with vocals) which appeal to the general public (sometimes termed radio-friendly). I never claimed that "Taurus III" was 20 minutes long, I was referring to the title track "Crises". If you read the statement at the top of the article correctly it says instrumental or long - "Taurus III" fails the first part as it is instrumental, "Crises" fails the second as it is a long piece (which cannot be considered a traditional pop/rock song).


 * Furthermore, I don't think you understand the difference between "Taurus II" and "Taurus III" when discussing the lengths on the live bonus disc of the Crises reissue.

TubularWorld (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Extra album track list templates in song/single infoboxes (compilations, additional releases, etc.)
I could not find a discussion on this matter, so I am wondering what the consensus is on compilation templates such as Relics tracks, An Introduction to Syd Barrett tracks, Endless Summer tracks, and The Best of George Harrison tracks. Invariably, their use is restricted for songs and singles which did not see their original release. The closest guidance I could find pertaining to this issue is on Template:Infobox Album which states:

None of this explicitly advises against extra track templates in song or single infoboxes. It would be nice to get some second opinions over adding track templates to them. I personally think extra track templates are perceived as the canonical equivalence to "alternate covers" meaning that they do not inherently suggest that a song/single is from, say, a compilation. I think the addition of such templates should be OK if there is rhyme or reason behind its use. What I would consider reasonable use of the template would be adding Magical Mystery Tour tracks to the "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Penny Lane" infoboxes. While the 1967 Magical Mystery Tour LP released by Capitol was not the original release of the single, I feel that its exclusion denies readers the harmless luxury of easy navigation through album tracks. See this edit--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * According to MOS:INFOBOX, "the purpose of an infobox is to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose."  Most of the fields in infobox singles and infobox songs pertain directly to the song and contain items that are or should be in an article.  However, the fields for albums tracks and singles chronology do not directly meet this purpose and seem to be included for navigation purposes.  All the tracks on the same album or the previous and following singles are often not discussed in song articles, probably because they don't add to the understanding of the songs themselves.  I think the "less is more" point is important and adding unnecessary information detracts (see "Come On"—the track listing for the double album overwhelms the article).  And having multiple track listings (and singles chronologies) diverts attention from the song information (see the examples "California Girls", "Bike").  In both infobox songs and singles, the album usually is already linked.  Additionally, the articles also often have artist navboxes and sometimes album navboxes at the bottom to provide links.  (In "Bike", Piper at the Gates of Dawn is linked at the top of the infobox, in the track listing, and in the album navbox at the bottom.  Two additional album track listings are provided in the infobox and the three are again linked in the artist navbox, which also links to a discography and song list.)  This seems like overlinking and undue emphasis.  What is really important to understanding the song being discussed?  I think that singles chronologies and album track listings should be included in the text if they are useful, otherwise they should appear in navboxes at the bottom. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of number-one bluegrass albums of 2013 (U.S.)
Dear album experts: Although I am a musician, I haven't done much work with charts. Is this an appropriate article topic, and is using the charting organization as a reference okay? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I did a search, and there are a lot of "List of top (genre x) song/albums in (region y)" articles, so, if they're not acceptable, I would think we'd have some substantial clean up to do. I would think it's okay as long as its properly sourced. Sergecross73   msg me  16:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no article on the Bluegrass Albums chart itself so what makes a list of its number ones notable, if we don't even know if the chart itself is. Where else is this information detailed or referenced besides the publishing company? It just seems like a list for the sake of a list. I would agree that much cleanup needs to be done on existing lists for other lesser charts that don't receive the coverage the primary charts do. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 21:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, a reason for the list is to provide information about which bluegrass albums sold well in 2013. The information on the chart is published by Billboard, a well known source of chart information, and well experienced in creating chart statistics.  Still, it's a single source. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Kimbra's The Golden Echo
Kimbra's second studio album "The Golden Echo" came out today and the Wikipedia page for it is very incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.58.236 (talk • contribs) 24 August 2014 04:15 (UTC)
 * If it's a notable album an article will be made for it. If it's not, then it won't. We're not about completeness but importance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that you may create it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Golden Echo has existed since 24 May this year. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is indeed; but you can edit it. Please do! (Don;t forget to include your references) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Article title query regarding The Byrds' (Untitled) album
I've done a lot of work on The Byrds-related articles, but something that's always bugged me is that the band's ninth album is called (Untitled), with the parentheses being a part of the title, but the album's article is located at Untitled (The Byrds album). Should I move it to (Untitled) (The Byrds album) or is there a reason why we don't start album articles with parentheses? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Bump! Anyone got a view or some advice on this? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think that, due to some of the things outlined at Wikipedia's guideline for article titling, that it'd be kept at Untitled, because standard English is typically used, rather than stylizations. (Like how we don't have the article titled "Ke$sha" but rather "Kesha", for example. I could be wrong though. Read through the link above and see if you find anything that more closely relates to what you're doing. Sergecross73   msg me  15:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

How to source a track listing
Hi there!

I'm currently involved in a discussion about the song titles on a soundtrack album.

I have provided a link to discogs.com which provides a typed track list and also links to photos of the physical album and its packaging. It does this for 42 different versions/pressings of this album.

Another editor rejects this a being a "primary source" and refers to two books as secondary sources that associates different titles to the songs in question.

(The example in question is the three-song suite towards the end of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. In dispute is the name of the suite and its first song.)

My question to the project are:

1. Is the track information taken from the physical album a valid enough source for a track list? I would think so since, even if it is a primary source, per No original research, primary sources are suitable for a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." There is no interpretation, analysis or synthesis going on, hence no secondary source is needed IMHO.

2. How to proceed if there are secondary sources that disagree with the information taken from the CDs/LPs etc.?

I'd be grateful if someone could comment on Talk:The Rocky Horror Picture Show, where the discussion takes place. Str1977 (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Str1977 (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Normally tracklisting from an album backing should probably trump a book. We don't normally use discogs as a source as it contains user submitted information. If you want to sample the tracklisting from an album sleeve, that is acceptable. I'd use template:Cite AV media notes. Unless the person's book has a specific reason for a different track listing, I would go by what a physical copy of the album says. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "We don't normally use discogs as a source as it contains user submitted information."
 * Sure, this is why I used the photos posted on that page. They happen to agree with the my and my sister's CD/LP. Str1977 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Its hard to say, considering usually there's not much of a dispute on this sort of thing, but I'd go by what it says on the actual product itself, and if there's another version that is used prominently, you could always add that in a collapsed form, as to not clutter things. See Collapsible tables for help on doing that, if you need it. Sergecross73   msg me  15:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

MuuMuse
"MuuMuse is a US-based pop music blog that is published daily", it was reliable? 183.171.167.253 (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Any time I see the word "blog" I'm immediately leaning towards "not reliable" per WP:RS. Can you provide evidence that it is reliable? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Its notability is one nod in its favour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ...Which has been contested since May 2012? Sergecross73   msg me  15:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But yet there it sits. I'm not saying it notable but the fact that it has not been deleted does not mean it's contested just that it's a borderline case. If it were to go to AfD, it would likely be kept. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Should the personnel section be ordered alphabetically?
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide, about how to order personnel sections of album articles. Interested editors are encouraged to join in the discussion there (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). — Mudwater (Talk) 14:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Raffi albums
I created an article for Raffi's newest album, Love Bug, but someone marked it as violating copyright, despite having a list of songs that parallels the lists in other Raffi albums. Any comments anyone has?? I would like to see if anyone can compare Love Bug (Raffi) with Singable Songs for the Very Young and see if the former article can be altered to parallel the latter in article in any way. Georgia guy (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Offspring album question
Days Go By has a parental advisory label that is a removable sticker on the American CD release. Does anyone know if the American CD releases of Splinter (their first with the PA label), or Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace have the removable sticker like Days Go By, or have it printed on the cover art, unlike Days Go By? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Drafts
After a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation, we want to try and get more subject knowledge onto reviews of draft submissions, which is sadly lacking. As a semi-regular of this reasonably active project, I've picked it for a guinea pig and tagged a bunch of album articles (these are easy to spot as they have "album" in the title!) and put them in Category:Draft-Class Album articles. There's a current problem in that category lists all drafts, not just those awaiting review, but hopefully I can find a solution for that soon.

If you have an account over 90 days old, over 500 edits, and understand basic policy, see WikiProject Articles for creation and WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

AXS
Should we use reviews from AXS that's a ticket merchant for album reviews in critical reception sections on articles such as My Everything and Worlds.03:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdditionSubtraction (talk • contribs)


 * Who does their reviews? Are they professional music journalists? Can you provide some links to a couple of the reviews as examples? The main question is "do these reviews pass WP:RS?", and without seeing more it's hard to say. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Maroon 5 V review, Ariana Grande My Everything review and Porter Robinson Worlds review are some of AXS reviews. I would suggest you look at my comment on My Everything. Some other editor added it back to the article, after I removed it from the article in question.AdditionSubtraction (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like Lucas Villa is writing the reviews only for the publication. He is the one that put the review back on the article that I removed it from with the My prerogative 15 account that's also his twitter handle. So, it is an SPS.AdditionSubtraction (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Metalholic
recently added a review from http://metalholic.com with this edit. Looking through the website, it appears to be a few fans writing their own reviews. A Google search didn't turn up much in the way of establishing reliability (specifically the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" requirement). I'm also concerned as this editor's name is the same as the editor-in-chief for the website (according to http://metalholic.com/about/), so it's likely these are the same person (and I have left a COI message on that editor's talk page), and that COI concerns me. But, does anyone else think this passes WP:RS? I think that whatever the outcome of this discussion, that outcome should be added to WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would not even delve into the subject matter on this webzines worthiness because it's TOOSOON for the article to have any reviews. We simply cannot correctly judge where a proper critical reception is on the matter at this juncture. This is the classic case to take a wait-and-see approach.AdditionSubtraction (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My question is about the general reliability of this site's reviews, not for the specific article I mentioned (this is not the first time I've seen this site's reviews pop up on Wikipedia). Regardless of any specific article's use, does this site's reviews pass WP:RS? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It says they had a print magazine for a bit. That's usually a point towards reliability. The work that goes into that usually suggests they have things like a dedicated staff, editorial oversight and policies, etc. It's more than just a rando who decided to start up a wordpress yesterday... Sergecross73   msg me  23:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say for critical reception sections it is appropriate and can be used, but for information pertaining to BLP it should not be used. You have to ask yourself what are you using a source for, and here it looks like it is just for reviews that means it is a lower threshold. So, I would say use it in the absence of ten or more higher quality review publications. They have a staff with some sense of editorial oversight, and the reviews are written by more than one person, which means it is not an SPS. This gives and lends greater validity and relevance to the publication in terms of critical reviewing.AdditionSubtraction (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd agree with that too. Definitely use other reviews if available, and maybe don't lean on it for controversial BLP stuff, but okay to use otherwise. Sergecross73   msg me  02:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The usage of is up for discussion, see talk:Parachutes -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Music Publisher
Why isn't music publisher a category ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.21.154 (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, the categories that you are likely looking for are Category:Music publishing companies and Category:Music publishers (people). TubularWorld (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Using multiple reviews from the same site
Is this allowed? I'm not looking to create cruft or put forth any kind of POV agenda, but rather add different takes on an album beyond just the usual go-to AllMusic review. In this case, I'm referring to two separate All About Jazz reviews (1, 2) for the Allan Holdsworth album None Too Soon. Both are in-depth and discuss slightly different things, which provides useful material for a critical reception section that I'm in the process of writing up. So, can I use them both? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with that, as long as you're not doing it to drown out other review sentiments or something. I wouldn't recommend it for something like the latest Lady Gaga or Nickelback album, which would have tons and tons of reliable reviews, but for something more obscure like a 90's jazz album, I wouldn't oppose. You can just differentiate by saying "Reviewer X of AllMusic" and "Reviewer Y of Allmusic" or something.  Sergecross73   msg me  19:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Provided that the reviews are from different reviewers, and each reviewer is a staff reviewer, I see no reason why it should not be the case. Particularly with niche sites like this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Slickaphonics redirects to a miles davis album but i was looking for the band
Hello, ok I just created an account - read some of the guidelines and now try to add some. Don't be too harsh if I'm wrong.

I'm just putting together a collection of music for my son and so far WP is agreat source for information. To do something constructive i now try to bring something into discussion.

The search for the Slickaphonics ended up on the "In Concert (Miles Davis album)" page

Actually the Slickaphonics are also a band around trombone player Ray Anderson

discography of the S. Slickaphonics: Modern Life (Enja, 1982) Slickaphonics: Wow Bag (Enja, 1983) Slickaphonics: Humatonic Energy (Blue Heron Records, 1985) Slickaphonics: Check Your Head at the Door (Teldec 1986) Slickaphonics: Live (Teldec 1987) (Source de.wikipedia.org and here on the Ray Anderson (musician) page)  

Anyway now I'm not so sure about what to do with it. I'd be not very comfortable with editing a new page because I'm german and my english is not good enough. So I thought for the moment it's better I just leave it here and wait for reactions or flower pots beeing thrown at me ...

best regards Markus

Mli63 (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know if at least two of these albums have been released under a major label? Or if any of their releases have charted? If so, they are likely to be notable enough for inclusion. Don't be afraid of writing an article with mistakes, when I started editing my English was not that good either (and I'm afraid it is still far from fluent). If the article satisfies at least our basic guidelines (notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, etc.), it will just need some minor edits to make it look better in case of mistakes. Oh, and bear in mind that you have a personal sandbox where you can develop articles at your own pace until they are suitable for inclusion. Victão Lopes  Fala! 19:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it doesn't look like they were ever ranked somewhere. Where's the list of 'major labels'? I don't know if Teldec is one of those. ('Enja' surely isn't I guess)

Mli63 (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Genre path in template
Can we remove the genre path from the albums template? It's obvious it's not helping any of the articles, only opening them up to cherry picked sources and edit warring. --64.134.96.198 (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I generally find the genre field troublesome and I suggested before that we make some change to it. The last conclusion was something to the effect of people suggesting it censors wikipedia or that the fact people disagree or people come in and vandalize the wiki were not enough reason to remove it. Personally, I wish we didn't have it and discussed genre in the prose of an article (as a single genre word doesn't really explain how an album sounds to most people). My advice would be if you don't have prose discussing the genre, don't add it in. I don't think there's any real rule stating that though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that was proposed a while back, and pretty strongly opposed. It may be subjective, and lead to a lot of fights, but it really is one of the defining aspects of many various media. (Music, film, video games, books, etc) I'd oppose removing it on those grounds alone. Sergecross73   msg me  18:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't think it wouldn't be important, but I just felt it was often misleading and such. Things like, album running time and recording dates are not subjective, while genre was. Since it's a fickle issue, it would better expressed in prose, as tagging a band like "Slipknot" and "Black Sabbath" as Heavy metal (which would be easy to do), wouldn't really suggest how different they sound. However, the prose would be able too do that. I think originally my suggestion was to use much more simple blanket genres for sources (i.e: place bands as rock, pop, R&B, hip hop, jazz, etc.), but that lead to problems with genres like World music as that's not really a Universal term for the genre. (i.e: people in Africa don't call their style of folk music as World music, etc.). I know WP:FILM has been against having genres in the infobox for those very reasons for a long time. Oh well. The struggle continues! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And in a perfect world, I'd probably agree with you. However, which such a huge number of album articles existing merely as "a tracklist and a few sentences of prose", I feel like it would be hard to enforce. I'm always shocked how many albums, from 1990s and earlier, have little to no prose at all. But then again, it can be harder to obtain sources from those older eras, so that's probably why. My stance is just that its hard to expect people to put it in the prose when so many album articles have little to no prose, I guess. Sergecross73   msg me  19:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh don't worry, I'm not trying to gripe. There are countless albums that really need a perk up. I'm glad there are tons of older Jazz and R&B albums from the 60s to the 90s getting the quality treatment. I've slowly been going through the Warp Records category to boost some electronic music albums because coverage of those is a bus load of genres and an allmusic review linked from a bot in a review box. Ah well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I support this for many of the reasons already given. It would eliminate a huge drain on editors' time which is now spent reverting, discussing, opening SPIs, etc.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  01:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

As troublesome as the field is, it's also very helpful. As a Wikipedia reader as well as an editor, I find the genre field quite useful. If I want to look up a new song to listen to (yes, I do that), I like to know if it's hip hop, rock, jazz, whatever; or if I hear a song in some style and I don't know what it is, I can find out the basic style. However, it can often get excessive and trivial (I've been guilty of adding such content in the past, but I try to avoid doing that now). It should be a good summary of what sources describe that album as, not every single style that might be used on the album. The problem is, over-eager editors or those who like/don't like a particular style or agree/disagree with the labeling of an album or song style often lose focus on the purpose of the template field and Wikipedia - to summarize material found in other sources.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 01:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this pretty well sums up my stance as well. Also, on a separate note, I've looked up the activities of this IP suggesting this, and its essentially a WP:GENREWARRIOR that's currently not getting his way at the moment, so I really don't think this is much of a "good-faith suggestion". It's more of a "I can't get my way, so I'm making it so nobody wins" type suggestion. Sergecross73   msg me  01:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I gathered as much. But it's at least kind of interesting to watch. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I figured you were up on it. It was more for some of these new joiners, especially if they were just passing by and not really looking into things much. Figured it was good for newcomers to the conversation to see too. Sergecross73   msg me  01:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that now, but this issue is being discussed "out there" anyway, with some editors !voting to have no entry in the genre field. Eliminating it entirely is the next logical step.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  02:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't personally agree, but ultimately, I believe it's something that will never have strong enough consensus to remove it. Like with past discussions on it. There's just too many different viewpoints on it. Sergecross73   msg me  02:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Going to copy over my two cents from WT:WikiProject Musicians since there's larger discussion here... I think information such as the genre is valuable to the reader's understanding of the subject, and that it should be front and center with the rest of the facts. It's unique in that it is subject to opinion, which may in turn attract disruption, but we still want users to edit things they're interested in. It can spark discussion and yield a more broad consensus than there was before. The few edit warriors that come with it are just a normal consequence of the wiki &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 04:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To argue that genre identification in an infobox is essential ignores the fact that at any given time it is often wrong. How is the reader being served if it is incorrect or misleading?  Also, bad information casts doubt on the rest of the article and makes WP look unreliable.  Most of the genre listings do not have reliable sources and are usually OR.  In my experience reaching many song and music articles, finding reliable sources that conclusively state that a particular song, album, etc. falls within a specific genre is rare.  They are often described in non-defining terms, such as bluesy guitar solo, soulful vocals, etc., which some editors cite as "blues", "soul", etc. for lack of anything better.  If this were left to be described in the text, the chance of giving the right impression would be better.  Unless their reliability in infoboxes can be assured (and I haven't seen any suggestions to make this happen), genres should be eliminated and discussed in the text. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I often just find it misleading, bands change their genre all the time. The Rolling Stones and the Beatles don't sound they way they did in the early 60s as they did later in their career and the infobox can't handle what albums were considered psychedelic albums (in the Beatles case) and which weren't. Ditto for specific songs, how many songs have to be gangsta rap songs for the album to be considered gangsta rap? Ditto for countless variations of jazz. The infobox I find just isn't specific enough and more often than not misleads a reader than aids them. It would be helpful it said it was a "Jazz" album, but it doesn't help to say "Avant-garde jazz, free funk, jazz fusion, post-bop". Which songs are which? How do I recognize the sound per song? Is every song a mixture of all of these? See what I'm getting at? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention some genres contain negative conotations. It's not a very popular term to be called a "nu metal" band or a "hair metal" group or whatever as these genres suggest a critical negativity towards the music. People will often edit these back and forth just leading to hard fisted genre warriors. If we can explain the style of music in the prose, I think we'd be way better off in giving valuable information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ojorojo here. I post on several music forums, and the general opinion is that Wikipedia is often not the best source when it comes to genres (music or otherwise). While there are obviously objective qualities to look for determining a band's genre, it's still not a rigorous scientific process, and what even a highly respected critic says may not be in line with the public consensus. And while nobody will dispute that Slayer was thrash metal or that Black Flag was hardcore punk, this can be especially problematic with bands of a more controversial nature (think something like Fugazi, Orthrelm or Alcest), especially when, like Andrzejbanas says, certain terms have negative connotations. I agree that with such cases it's better to use something general like pop, rap, metal or punk, and then go into specifics in the article's body. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Genre is a fluid concept and thus could never be determined through "rigorous scientific process". Nothing on Wikipedia uses "rigorous scientific process" anyway. However, I know what you mean. I like the idea of a more simplistic infobox, but the problem with using simple terminology is you will have people challenging Linkin' Park as rock, and others challenging Linkin' Park as metal. All this being said, I've found that by and large, the infobox accurately summarizes the analysis provided by reliable sources. Sure, there are problems with the tag being too broad, or too specific, or slanted in a particular way or toward or against certain sources, but issues of accuracy and bias are inherently a problem with Wikipedia in general, not just with the music genre tags.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 23:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't mean the "rigorous scientific process" in terms of in terms of Wikipedia editing. I meant that in terms of music experts claiming that something belongs to one genre or another. Like I said, there are some objective qualities to look for, but you can't "prove" that certain bands belong to certain genres the same way you can prove that iron is a metal. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought you meant, but I wasn't sure. I think we are in total agreement on that point.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 00:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagreed when the genre field was first removed in late 2008 (I keep forgetting to bookmark the actual discussion archive, but it was MASSIVE), and I will still disagree if it is done again. It's late and I'm not feeling too wordy right now, but many of my music 'discoveries' in the past decade have been made purely by having a glance at the genres in WP infoboxes—that being done for leisure, not academic scrutiny. On the whole, I find the genres to be accurate enough. There'll be some cases where there's too many, or too few, but usually at least one will give an idea of what music to expect. Granted, there'll be a few articles which will forever be the subject of intense genre warrior'ing, but I just think it's one of those things which WP cannot productively do anything about. Let it slide, and let the editors continue the battle against genre warriors. Besides, don't some of us find it rather.. fun? It certainly makes for a decent keyboard workout when bored! *smirk* Having done a bit of mild genre warrior'ing myself a few years ago, I can sit back and look at such heated discussions now and view them as a source of harmless entertainment. I can even amuse myself by reading over some of the haughty tripe I used to come up with, just for the sake of having an unsourced genre included. And y'know what—I wouldn't have it any other way. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of removing it for the reasons mentioned previously. Another problem with the genres, particularly the myriad of sub-genres, is that if the reader goes to the genre article you often find an ill-defined, badly written and poorly sourced article that doesn't relate to the album in question anyway. Piriczki (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think in cases where an album's genre is complicated either due to have many subgenres, it would be best to put something like " see Music and recording " or something like that. Or just leave it blank. Erick (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Genre template should remain in album and song articles. It's gives a quick and easy view to what genre(s) the album or song is. — ₳aron  15:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Blistering
Would it be okay to cite Blistering reviews as a source for genre citations? SonOfPlisskin (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The site is not the question, it's the reviewers. Are they professionals? Are they recognized as such or as "staff" on the site? Are the reviewers recognized as professionals on other sites? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The reviewer in question (Justin Donnelly) is listed under "writers and contributors" in the staff section, and his reviews and interviews have been used on a few pages here, including for bigger bands like Suicide Silence, Strapping Young Lad and Isis, but I can't find any other info about him, except that he also wrote for a less notable site called "Metal Forge". SonOfPlisskin (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I found his Google+ page and he has "freelance journalist" in his "about me" section. Probably not the best source. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Freelance journalist" merely means he works on commission per article. It does not indicate one way or the other whether he is reliable. Blistering itself is reliable. It appears to have editorial oversight, and has been cited in numerous reliable sources, so it should be good. I don't know what Walter means by "the site is not the question, it's the reviewers." If the site is reliable, it's reviewers are too, unless the site indicates otherwise (i.e., posts a disclaimer).-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 13:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. I'll use it for now, and take it off if anyone objects later on. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Statistics
I was just wondering, does anybody know when the statistics are updated? I moved some articles a week or two ago but the numbers haven't changed. --Divine618 (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)