Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 49

Al Jarreau - Look to the rainbow
Hello, I just noticed there's no article about the Al Jarreau album 'look to the rainbow' instead that phrase is redirected to the Astrud Gilberto album. Due to the album is one of my alltime favourites I'd really like to see an article on it - I would even try to make one on my own. However it will take me a while to collect facts and edit the page.

In the meantime I wonder if anyone's allready working on it. Is there a list of album articles that are under construction somewhere?

Btw I tried before to bring the Slickaphonics into discussion but unfortunately they are neither published on a major label nor have they ever been in any charts as far as I can see. 'Look to the Rainbow' was published by Warner and is been ranked so it should meet the guidelines for an article (1977: Look to the Rainbow (Warner Bros. Records) – US# 49, R&B# 19, Jazz# 5) Al Jarreau

btw. I got a nice reply to my words about the Slickaphonics but didn't find a way to answer to that. Is that answering feature only for moderators or am I just blind? Is it by editing the page? I wouldn't dare to change anotherones article without beeing absolutely sure what I'm doing. P.S. I just tried to figure out by opening the above article and after leaving without saving I found the above text in that article - I have no idea how that happened and have now removed it. I hope I didn't make a mess. If so I apologise ... :\

Mli63 (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. (1) There's not a list of album articles that are under construction, as far as I know.  (2) Feel free to create the article.  The key point in my view is to include a few third-party sources as references (preferably in-line footnotes), to establish that the album meets the Wikipedia notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." (3) I recommend that you read the Wikipedia Tutorial, it's an excellent overview of how to edit articles.  Have fun.  — Mudwater (Talk) 11:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering. Well the main source of information is the album cover I hold in my hands ;) Yes I looked into some aspects, read the howtos and frankly I find it hard to get started. Some sort of template would be nice to have. I know there's some sort of it mentioned but well - simply give me some time (of which I don't have plenty) I'll sort it out. It'll take some time to figure things out. But I'm on it. Mli63 (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you have the album, that helps, of course. But any article, including an album article, should have some third-party references (either online or printed) as citations.  Using Google I've found a few that should be good for a Look to the Rainbow article: AllMusic album review, Milwaukee Sentinel article about the Grammy award, book with an interview. You can also take a look at the Album Article Style Guide for some "how to" suggestions.  Another good idea, I think, would be for you to get more up to speed on editing Wikipedia by improving some existing articles before you create a new one.  That's what most people do.  If you look at some articles that interest you, for example articles about Al Jarreau albums or other albums, you can probably find ways to make them at least slightly better. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I allready found something on artistdirect and the article is allready in my sandbox. Just now I'm looking for the search engine for the album cover image ( I allready had it ) but more or less the article doesn't look too bad for a first attempt I think. Some more details and I'm done for a first review. btw. just seen the allmusic review is the same as the one on artistdirectMli63 (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks good! — Mudwater (Talk) 23:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mli63 (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For the moment I'm more or less done for a first review. The only thing missing is the album cover. I'm not sure how to deal with it. I put an image request in my sandbox but what now - do I simply have to wait? Can I upload one on my own - I have a good camera. I don't quite understand the tutorial on that topic. (And frankly I don't understand copyright issues with album covers in general. I would think the only copyright owner of the cover image should be Warner or not? ;) Just kidding

I now submitted the article for review. Mli63 (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Markus – there is a long backlog for reviewing new articles, so don't be surprised if it takes weeks or even months for the article to be approved. In the meantime you can continue to work on it: don't worry about not having a picture of the album cover up, it's more important to work on the text of the article. In any case you won't be allowed to upload a copyrighted image to your sandbox, so the album cover can wait until the article is approved. Reviews of the album usually go in a separate section headed "Reception" or "Critical reception" - you can certainly add the Allmusic review of the album which can be found here. I would also think about simplifying the writing credits on the tracklisting: as most of the songs are written by Jarreau, I would add the parameter "all_writing = Al Jarreau except where noted" to the top of the tracklisting template after "writing_credits = yes", which will produce the line "All songs written and composed by Al Jarreau except where noted", and then only add the names of the other writers for the songs which are not by him in the "writer2", etc. parameter, leaving the others blank... see for example Last Splash for an idea of what I mean. Richard3120 (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the review backlog is so long, what do you think of the idea of Mli63 creating the article himself now? It really looks pretty good, and I'm convinced that the current references establish the notability of the album.  Then he, and also potentially other editors, could still continue to work on the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the basic structure of the article is there: I hope Mli63 isn't offended by me saying this, but there is only one paragraph of text at the moment in the lead of the article, and it's copied and pasted directly from Allmusic's review which isn't allowed under Wikipedia rules – also phrases like "more mundane version of R&B" and "Jarreau is in top form" contravene WP:NPOV, so really the whole text needs to be rewritten in a more objective manner before the article goes live. Is there any more information about the recording itself? I can see it says "Recorded in Europe", but do we know where? One or more countries/cities? I'm just trying to get some context and information about the album. Richard3120 (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact I've just realised the Artistsdirect "review" is actually a copy of the Allmusic review – the Allmusic reference should be the one used as it's the original. Nevertheless, it should go in a separate reception section rather than the lead. Richard3120 (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you two for the response. I'll see what I can do. I hesitate to write the description text on my own. I found the allmusic review copied in several palces. I couldn't figure out who's was the original. You think it's allmusic? I change the reference then and put it in a seperate section critical review and I'll see what I can do for the main description.
 * @Mudwater thanks for the hint with the credits list. I'll look into that later today. Yes I've seen there's a lot article waiting for review - that's not a problem. Regards Mli63 (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have a look at the album review on ARTISTdirect (http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,109104,00.html) you can see it is headed "All Music Guide Review", so it shows it originally came from Allmusic. Richard3120 (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * About the locations. No, unfortunately the album cover says nothing about where exactly the recording took place. The first song definitely was recorded in Berlin because Al Jarreau says so: "Good evening Berlin" and listening to the audience I assume, the recording was mainly done there but I don't have a written prove for it. @Mudwater I changed the credits as you suggested.
 * Can I also use german sources? My problem in the moment is that Al Jarreau has been not very popular in the US back in 1977 but I found an enthusiastic article in the german weekly "Der Spiegel" (which is a reliable source) which also mentions some of the first locations. But it's in German.Mli63 (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not: there's no rule that says you have to use English-language sources on the English Wikipedia, and Der Spiegel is certainly a reliable source as Germany's best known and respected current affairs magazine. I *might* be able to find some reviews from 1977 in British music magazines, but it's not certain. Richard3120 (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the original review of the album in Billboard from June 11, 1977: http://books.google.com/books?id=cyQEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA1&rview=1&pg=PT78#v=onepage&q=star&f=false. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 15:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi & thanks for providing the link. But unfortunately I can't read the article. It's all blurred. Is there a way to get it transferred? It surely would be interesting :\
 * there should be a couple of magnifying glass icons above the page which allow you to zoom in and out, and let you read it better. I'm not sure it tells you very much though: Billboard is a trade magazine and therefore doesn't really carry proper critical reviews. Richard3120 (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I found articles that could help - now looking if I can find them online - any suggestions?

(from http://www.jazzinstitut.de/Jazzindex/Jarreau_Al.pdf)

Lee Underwood: Profile. Al Jarreau, in: Down Beat, 43/16 (7.Oct.1976), p. 37-38 (F/I)

"Gilmore": Al Jarreau – "Look to the Rainbow", in: Down Beat, 44/16 (1977), p. 24 (R)

Joachim Ernst Berendt: Al Jarreau. A Ritual from the Throat, in: Jazz Forum, #49 (1977), p. 34-36 (F/I)

Joachim Ernst Berendt: Al Jarreau. Das Ritual aus der Kehle, in: Jazz Forum, #49 (1977), p. 35-37 (F/I)

Francis Hofstein: En Direct. Al Jarreau, in: Jazz Magazine, #252 (Feb/Mar.1977), p. 6 (C)

Leonard Feather: Report from Hollywood. Glowing Jarreau, in: Melody Maker, 28.May 1977, p. 55

Lee Underwood: Al Jarreau. The Amazing Acrobat of Scat, in: Down Beat, 45/6 (23.Mar.1978), p. 15-16,37-39 (F/I)

... what have I started? *sigh* ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mli63 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Melody Maker article will certainly not be online, but I might be able to have a look at it in the British Library in a couple of weeks – it looks more like a review of a live concert of Jarreau in the US rather than the album itself. I will see if I can find the album reviews in Melody Maker, NME and Sounds. Richard3120 (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much :)Mli63 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

At Verifiability it says, "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.... When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote.... In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited." — Mudwater (Talk) 23:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand. For the moment it's just some locations and dates but I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for clearifying. Mli63 (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If the German source is the only one you find that has the concert locations and dates, then I would encourage you to use it as a reference. In that case there would not be an English source of equal relevance. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I reworked the article and that's more or less what I have to say about the album. Yes, it's bad english but I will have it reviewed by a friend from US. I'm pretty unsure if it's crab what I wrote but for the moment there's nothing more to add from my side. I wrote a couple of mails to get the exact tour data but on the other hand this is an article about the album and we'll never find out where exactly the recordings took place. So imho that'd be nice to have but not necessary. What do you think? Mli63 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Some user 78.26 now changed the structure. It sure makes sense that way but I now again have no opening text. What do you pros think of it? I'm uncertain how to proceed ... Mli63 (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Mli63 (and others). I think the article is nearly ready for promotion to the mainspace.  It has enough sources, and is clearly a notable album, but I think it copies too much of the Allmusic review.  A 10-15 word summary would be better, so as to avoid accusations of copyright infringement.  The other issue which prevents me from promoting is the German text, which makes the "Background" section appear cluttered/unreadable.  I hope someone with much better German knowledge than I have will translate it.  The other sources can be added before or after promotion, and I hope someone with access to the offline items will do that.  Already the article is better than about half the Albums articles here.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 16:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi,Thanks for your answer. The german text isn't meant to remain there. I tried a translation which you find in the double '?' below the german. I just asked a friens who's native speaker to review my translation. Once it's verified I'll remove the german. I now also shortened the allmusic review.Mli63 (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. I've moved it to mainspace.  Its a nice little article, it could always use improvement, of course.  I hope you circle back and add in the other critical reviews.  Also here's hoping you write more album articles!  Good job.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 17:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That was fun ... :) Thanks for the quick review and thank you all very much for your support. There's one thing left for the moment. Shouldn't the title be Look to the Rainbow (Al Jarreau album)? And looking for 'Look to the Rainbow' still redirects to Astrud Gilberto. But I guess that's just some DB update issues. Again thanks a lot!! Mli63 (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well done, there is enough there for other people to be able to work with and add further things that they come across over time. I will try and tidy up a few little things to fit with Wikipedia's MoS but I'm at a wedding this weekend, so I may not be able to do it straight away! I speak German so I can always check the translations, but it looks like your friend has already done it. Don't worry about getting it exactly right first time, it's something you learn as you edit Wikipedia more and get used to it – I have encountered articles for some well known albums (even no. 1 records) that are in much worse shape than this article, you've done a good job. I think you may be right about having to retitle the article's name, we will see what other editors think. Richard3120 (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there another article on Wikipedia that could be confused with the album Look to the Rainbow? If so, then adding " (album)" would be enough. If there's another album with an article on Wikipedia called "Look to the Rainbow", then adding " (Al Jarreau album)" would be warranted. Per WP:DAB, no need to disambiguate more than necessary. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes there is – Look to the Rainbow (Astrud Gilberto album), which is also where you get redirected to if you just search for 'Look to the Rainbow'. Hence my belief that we would need to add (Al Jarreau album) in the article name, which you have just confirmed. Richard3120 (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks Mli63, and thanks to everyone who helped with this. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I think that for Look to the Rainbow, the Al Jarreau album, having won a Grammy award, is the primary topic. In that case the article title should be left the way it is, i.e. "Look to the Rainbow". — Mudwater (Talk) 23:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Richard3120 and MrNoustacheMM are correct, WP:SONGDAB eschews primary topic for very good reasons. That is why the article should be at Look at the Rainbow (Al Jarreau album). --Richhoncho (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at Naming conventions (music), the relevant section on that page, and I don't see anything either for or against naming an album as a primary topic. So under the more general guideline it's allowed or even encouraged.  If I'm missing something please clue me in.  But a legitimate question would be whether or not the Al Jarreau album is really the primary topic here.  I think it is but others may disagree. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't see where it mentions primary topic, but it does say if there are two or more (songs or albums) with the same name then disambiguate by artist. For myself I can't see a valid reason to hide the artist. Are we ashamed it is Al Jarreau? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A topic is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." The idea is that, in that case, it's better to just take readers to what they are very probably looking for anyway, rather than making them go through a disambiguation page.  — Mudwater (Talk) 00:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am fully conversant with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, thank you. I see no compunction in the guideline to apply it, even though in many instances I am a supporter of it, too. However song and album titles are repeated often. Another album next year by, say, Coldplay, with the same title, and the AL Jarreau will have to be moved under PT. Even assuming there are are only two "Look at the Rainbow" (album or otherwise) ever you are wishing any Gilberto seekers to go to the wrong album because they won't know about the Jarreau album. This is why Songdab makes no reference to primary topic, which for songs and albums is little more than a facetious beauty contest. Jarreau is better served being disambiguated. If you also want to discuss whether the Jarreau album is truly PT, I'm happy to do that too, but my starting point is the examples are far more PT than any album or song. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your point about a Coldplay album named Look to the Rainbow could apply to any primary topic. That is, something that's now a primary topic could in the future possibly no longer be the primary topic.  In that case the article name should be disambiguated in the future, when that actually occurs.  So, having come this far, do you think the Al Jarreau album is the primary topic for "Look to the Rainbow"? — Mudwater (Talk) 00:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Another editor, 78.26, also seems to favor the idea of the Jarreau album being the primary topic, here. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is Primary topic is not compulsory and contains many provisos, ifs, buts and conditions. WP:SONGDAB eschews primary topic. Best to take this to a RM which I will do in a day or two unless somebody else beats me to it. Quite possible it will get moved without an RM. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Richhoncho, I was saying there was not a need to disambiguate that much. The album is the primary topic, and shouldn't need to be disambiguated further. (Also, it's MrMoustacheMM). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologise for typing your name wrong, but as you wrote, "If there's another album with an article on Wikipedia called "Look to the Rainbow", then adding " (Al Jarreau album)" would be warranted." it's quite clear what you meant. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, crap. I totally missed that, my apologies. Stricken through. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll hat this part of the discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm still quite sure that, in general, an album can be a primary topic, and therefore not have a disambiguated title. That said, most editors who have commented here are not convinced that the Al Jarreau album is the primary topic, and even I think that there is room for argument on that point. I'm now feeling ambivalent about whether the title should be disambiguated or not. So feel free to consider me neutral on this question. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

if I may again (as I'm 'guilty' of this): I'd feel more comfortable if it was 'Look to the Rainbow (Al Jarreau album)' for a simple reason. I believe Al jarreau wouldn't want to be put 'on top' of Astrud Gilberto and vice versa. So if there are two albums with the same name they should be treated equaly. Chart action does not make one music more important than the other. Just my 2 Pfennig. Regards Mli63 (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since my comment on the album talk page was mentioned, I might as well state that while, of the two albums, the Jarreau is more likely to be deemed primary, I have no objection to the article being moved to the suggested name, so long as a disambiguation page is simultaneously created.   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 18:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

AS there was no objection, I have moved without a RM. A disambiguation page is now at Look to the Rainbow. I have made the necessary dabs. Improvements always welcome. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What makes a single a single?
Can a song that was released solely for streaming, and/or free download, and/or one that is available for download immediately after completed a pre-order for an upcoming album, be considered a single? Or does it have to be available, even if for free, through a retailer such as iTunes or Amazon to qualify as a single? Many songs by Lecrae from his Gravity and Anomaly albums were released for free streaming and/or free download, and were touted by both his label and reliable sources (such as Billboard and MTV) as singles. Would these be technically singles or merely buzz singles?-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 20:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * some discussion about this can be found in WT:SONGS archives here and also here. as far as i know, Songs does not yet have a clearly defined hard rule for making the distinction. in general, i think it's a good idea to go along with what reliable, third-party sources are calling it. ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 21:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's how I always handle it too. Sergecross73   msg me  00:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 00:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a horrendously complicated subject nowadays in the digital era – for instance, Elbow's website stated in July 2014 that "Real Life (Angel)" was their new single and they made a video to go with it, but I'm not entirely sure it was ever released as a stand-alone track in any form: there was no physical product (7" vinyl, CD single, etc.) and I don't think it was made available to download individually as it was already available on the album The Take Off and Landing of Everything, so in what sense exactly was it a single... just a promotional video? This is why I mainly stick to improving articles about singles from the 1970s and 80s, much easier to define. ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Richard3120, it is very complicated these days. In my experience, reliable sources often aren't super reliable in this area. Most trust-worthy publications will use the term "single" to describe any song used to promote an album, regardless of whether or not it was actually released as a bonafide single. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And so you're saying we can't use the reliable sources because they use the term ambiguously. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you can just blanket-policy dismiss what sources say though, considering, you know, the foundation of the entire project. I do think a bit of skepticism could be good though, like if only one or two marginally well known sources call something a single, then yeah, maybe there's cause for concern or doubt. Sergecross73   msg me  12:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm presuming that the vast majority of sources call the song a single - I agree that if only one or two marginally well-known, or even well-known sources, use the term, then yes, there's cause for doubt.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 13:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me give an example: the promotional songs for Sleigh Bells' sophomore album Reign of Terror. This album only had one official single, "Comeback Kid." However, many of what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source will tell you that "Born to Lose" and "End of the Line" were also singles from this album, including: Consequence of Sound, Coup de Main, Jackson Guitars, MTV, Spin, Music Trajectory, Glamour, The Fader, Flavorwire, Stereogum, Pitchfork, Paste, Filter, Vulture, Consequence of Sound, Spin, CMJ, Rolling Stone, MTV, Exclaim! (some sources are listed twice, but they are different links for both songs). However, "End of the Line" was only released as a music video and "Born to Lose" was only released as a digital stream. Neither track was released independently of the album as a download (either free or for pay) nor was it released in a physical format. I've even checked eBay in case I missed the release of a limited-edition single, and multiple international iTunes and Amazon websites to see if they were released as singles outside of the US, and still no evidence that these two songs were ever released as a single. So now we're given a choice: Do we ignore the fact that these songs actually aren't singles and just go with what the sources say because reliable sources are the foundation of Wikipedia, or do we ignore what the sources say and accurately represent these songs as non-singles? We can't pick both options and there's no middle ground, so one of these items has to be ignored. I'd hope everyone here would be more in favor of the truth and an accurate representation of the information. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So are you saying we need a definition of single that ignores promotional song downloads and videos? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, no definition of single includes videos. The debate about Sleigh Bells' songs made it all the way to the dispute resolution notice boards (Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 49), the result of which was that belief that singles and music videos are one and the same is a fringe theory. And neither of the above tracks mentioned was released as a promotional song download, so that's not even relevant to what I'm saying. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So songs that only had videos are out. But what about those released early for streaming, free download, and/or were available for immediate download if the album was pre-ordered?-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 18:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A single is a record with one track on each side (a minority have more than one track on one or both sides, or nothing on the B-side). The term is also used for non-vinyl formats that have the same amount of tracks, such as CD singles and cassette singles. A download containing the same content as a physical single could be considered a single. An individual track available for download isn't a single, it's a track - having an accompanying video doesn't change this. A track made available to download or stream to promote an album isn't a promotional single, it's just a track. We shouldn't go with every definition used by 'reliable sources', we should go with definitions consistently used by the most authoritative sources that we trust, and definitions that are consistent and make sense when writing an encylopedia. --Michig (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then there are very few singles nowadays – many singles/promotional tracks are only released in digital download form. The current number one single in the UK as I type, "Changing" by Sigma, would not be a single by your criterion as it is only available as a download. Richard3120 (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The singles chart isn't a singles chart anymore. Any album track can get in the singles chart based on downloads from iTunes. Just because an album track happens to get downloaded enough to get in the 'singles' chart, it doesn't suddenly become a single. The Singles chart is basically a hybrid singles/tracks chart. --Michig (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, but then that just makes it sound like we should give up on the idea of trying to classify a single altogether, if we can't call the No. 1 single (which is a stand-alone record, not available on any album, so therefore not a promotional track) a single. Richard3120 (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, if it's only available as a download, it isn't a record (although we could find plenty of sources using 'record' to mean 'album', which highlights the dangers of going with anything that sources use). It's definitely a track. It isn't a single in the sense of what 'single' originally meant. If enough people call it a single then perhaps it is, but it's a different meaning of the term to the original usage. When the singles chart includes album tracks that in no sense of the word are singles, then the term used in this new context becomes meaningless. A 7-inch single with one track on each side is, however, still a single. Even in the modern usage, I would say that for a download track to be considered a single it would need to be commercially released for sale independently of an album or EP, which would exclude the "free download track from our website", "here's a video we put on Youtube" and "radio stations please play this track to promote our album" scenarios. I think that makes sense. Just to illustrate how daft the 'new' usage of 'single' is, a band could release a single containing 2 tracks, also available as a 2 track download single. People could then just download the B-side as an individual track in large quantities, and the B-side could then reach the singles chart in addition the single (both tracks) itself. The sooner they scrap the whole concept of a singles chart and replace it with a 'tracks chart' the better, ideally with a separate chart for physical singles. --Michig (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you say – if anything, you've shown how hellishly difficult it is to determine conclusively what a "single" should be. But as almost all singles/tracks/whatever you call them are going the way of the 'download only' option, it seems that by your definition the single will soon no longer exist. I think it is highly likely that within a few years all physical forms of singles will disappear, certainly from mainstream artists, and what "physical singles chart" exists is likely to comprise solely dance music made by producers/DJs, and indie/alternative bands, with the likes of Miley Cyrus and One Direction nowhere to be seen (actually, that sounds like a good thing...). I should note that back in the 1950s and 60s it wasn't uncommon for B-sides to make the charts on their own alongside the A-sides, kind of like the scenario you are suggesting. Richard3120 (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , as the internet has transformed the music industry, I agree with that the concept of a physical single is nearly obsolete in the industry, apart from use by DJs and the like. There definitely is a digital counterpart to the idea of a physical single. Take "Hallelujah" by Lecrae for an example. It is a track from an album, but it is also marketed on iTunes as a stand alone song, with its own catalog listing apart from the album. I am pretty sure that there would be no contention over "Hallelujah" being called a single. But is a song like "Tell the World," which was released to radio and for streaming prior to the release of Gravity and made available for immediate download if someone pre-ordered the album, a single or a buzz single? You needed to pay for the album in order to get the song ahead of time, and the song was played on the radio, but it was not technically available as a separate track from the album. Another example: "Church Clothes". In this case, the entire mixtape was free, so if the song is released for free download, separate from the album, ahead of the release of Church Clothes, could it qualify as a single? Why should a song like "Hallelujah", which was released separate from an album but also available on the album, qualify as a single, and "Church Clothes" not, as the entire album that "Church Clothes" can be found on was free? (These questions are addressed to the community at large, not just user Michig.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 22:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Physical singles are certainly not obsolete. "Hallelujah" isn't a single in the traditional sense. It's something else that we need to find another name for - I see these sometimes referred to simply as "songs" ("we have a new song coming out"), which is just as problematic. "Tell the World" would be an album track in my view. Even before the advent of downloads record companies sent promotional material to record stations "suggesting" which track to play before an album was released - there was never any suggestion that this was a single and I don't see why that changes just because we're now discussing downloads. If it was produced on a physical single and sent out then it would be a promotional single. If you buy an album in advance and get one track straight away it's just an album track that you got earlier than the rest. If a band streams a track on their website in advance of an album being released it's just a track, not a single. If someone puts a video on Youtube, it's a Youtube video, not a single. I really don't understand the obsession that some people have these days with calling everything a single. --Michig (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's an obsession with calling everything a single, it's simply a sign of the times – a single used to be a stand-alone track (with a B-side) on 7" vinyl, now it's a stand-alone track released in a different format, whether that's as an MP3 or as a promotional video. You are correct that strictly speaking these should not be called singles, but like you I think artists, record companies and music magazines are finding it difficult to come up with a viable alternative name for them, so they just use the word "single" because it's a term the public are familiar with. Regardless of whether it's just a track, it's still going to make the "singles chart" if it sells enough copies, and we can't make the OCC change the chart's name.
 * I think perhaps we are worrying a bit unnecessarily – most of the songs that we are using as examples of how confusing the correct technical name is aren't likely to crop up much in Wikipedia and aren't going to trouble the chart. You could describe the release of "Tell the World" in a single line as above, within the 'Release and promotion' section of Gravity, and that would be enough, it would never have its own article anyway. The songs that do make the singles chart and which will have a separate Wikipedia article, like "Changing", have a clear stand-alone release and can be considered as singles, even if that doesn't include any physical version. If you still don't like the use of the word "single" for a download-only song, then I can't see any other option than to merge the "song" and "single" infobox templates and call everything a song, and then describe in the article text if that song has then been released as a single (I've read your thoughts about this on your user page, by the way, and I am broadly in agreement with you). Richard3120 (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And just to play devil's advocate, is Thom Yorke's new album an "album" or a collection of tracks only available on download? ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Merging songs and singles is a terrible idea. A song is a composition and doesn't necessarily have to be recorded or 'released' at all, or could be recorded by mutliple artists. Really not the same thing as a single, or even a track. And yes, a collection of tracks of a certain length is pretty much the definition of an album, so Tomorrow's Modern Boxes is certainly an album. It isn't, however, and LP or a record, although some sources may use those terms, which again highlights the problem with using 'any use of a term in sources' rather than agreed specific definitions. --Michig (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was being a little facetious, sorry – it is of course an album as all the tracks can only be bought collectively. But my point was that just because it is only available as a download does not exclude it from the charts, and I think the same applies to a download only single providing it can be demonstrated that it has been released individually. I can certainly see a point in the not too distant future where an album is available only as a download, but each track can be downloaded individually from Amazon or iTunes or wherever, in which case that causes a headache for chart compilers to determine sales of the album as a whole, as people are liable to pick and choose which tracks to download.
 * I also agree that merging songs and singles is a bad idea for precisely the reasons you state, I only meant that I could not see an alternative if we state that a song/track only available on download does not qualify as a single, but I agree it's certainly not a better alternative. Richard3120 (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

New infobox parameters
I've added Venue (for live albums) and Studio (for studio albums; and the place where live albums are "finished") to Infobox album. This removes the need to shoe-horn such data into Recorded (or we could also create recorded_date, and deprecate the existing parameter). This improves data granularity.

I've also proposed an equivalent property to Studio, for Wikidata (which already has P766 "event location" for live albums). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * which should be used when an album was recorded neither in a proper studio nor a venue? for example, Campfire Songs was recorded on a screen porch, and Running on Empty includes recordings made in hotel rooms. isn't it a little incorrect to call these "studios"? ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 19:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If someone sets up portable recording equipment in a room, and carries out multi-track recording with overdubs, then it's arguably a studio, but for the former, I'd suggest Venue. Or you can leave the parameter blank, just as (at the time of writing) the current infoboxes have no venue listed as part of recorded. Or use Various. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Genre issue on GA nominated article
Hello. An editor and I have hit a stand still in an article related to this project regarding genre. Could some editors weight in on it here please? thank you! Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! Harej (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No Ripcord
No Ripcord is linked from nearly 200 pages, mostly in the review infoboxes on album articles, but the page has been deleted in the past. Should this have an article? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Big Cheese and Rock Hard magazine
A Big Cheese (magazine) review was added to the template in The Blackest Beautiful article. It appears to be a print-publication but is not featured in the reliable sources list. Is it actually reliable? Should we add it to the list or not?

Also, the article for Rock Hard (magazine) was deleted yesterday citing its lack of secondary sources and notability. Would this affect its reliability, since it is also featured on the list? Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at Big Cheese, it's definitely a print magazine, and their contact page seems to kind of minimal. From a little digging, I know this isn't a great source, but this linkedin profile here showcases a freelance writer for Big Cheese who also worked for Terrorizer, and this other person here. There seems to be a few other profiles here I can't view, but I'd say Big Cheese, despite it's silly name, is a good source! Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Notability and reliability as a source are two different things. It can still be a reliable source even if it fails the notability guidelines. It'd still be a RS unless the original grounds for considering it a RS were faulty or something. Sergecross73   msg me  01:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is true, but from my search, it seems Big Cheese is okay. Not having much luck with Rock Hard, but then again, my German is a bit rusty/non-existant. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Big Cheese is a professional print magazine - fine as a source of reviews. --Michig (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then, it can be added to the list, I believe. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"Upon its release"
It's quite possible this isn't the right place to ask this. If so, sorry.

I constantly see the construction "upon its release" in articles about songs and albums (not to mention other forms of entertainment like movies). For example: "Upon its release, the album received positive reviews from critics." I've never seen a case where this has been useful information: who cares when the thing was reviewed? Music isn't typically reviewed before it's released or at least finished.

Is there somewhere this can be written down as a bit of guidance? It's such a petty complaint but the term's ubiquity drives me mad. Popcornduff (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's sometimes useful when you're making a distinction between reviews at the time of the record's release, and legacy reviews years later (say, on the release of a deluxe or anniversary edition) – it can be interesting to compare reviews, particularly if the record was not well reviewed upon its initial release, but has since gone on to be widely acclaimed, e.g. the albums of Nick Drake. I agree it probably doesn't need to be used for every record, though. Richard3120 (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's one example where it's useful - but do a search for the phrase and you'll find very few good uses of it. Popcornduff (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I suspect if I looked back through my past edits I'm probably guilty of it as well. :-/ Richard3120 (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Track list numbering
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple, about how the songs in a track listing should be numbered. Interested editors are encouraged to join in the discussion there (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). — Mudwater (Talk) 13:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion about track list numbering is now taking place at Template talk:Track listing. Please join the discussion there if you are interested. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Parental Advisory on Offspring album
The article for Splinter by The Offspring is their first album to have the label on the cover. Is the article's statement accurate? Is the label actually on the cover art, or is it a removable sticker like it is on their two later studio albums? Does anyone know? 173.51.130.250 (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Australian alternative band Cloud Control's second record; "Dream Cave" has no page!
It has come to my attention the second album by Australian indie band Cloud Control has no page on Wikipedia. This band is fairly significant in the Australian indie music scene and was nominated for a number of awards in 2013 including the highly coverted J Award. It seems to me that the band has been around long enough and the album was popular enough to warrant a page on this website.

I would be more than happy to assist with the page and apply my knowledge of the band/album, but I have only recently joined Wikipedia as a user and will need some assistance from someone who knows what they are doing. But I believed that this would be a great place for me to start!

Please reply here or on my talk page if you are interested in helping me develop the page. I love Australian alternative music so I would have no problems retrieving the info!!

Thanks - Hori.horizontal (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC) - THERE IS NO SPOON


 * Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia.  I suggest that you start writing the article in your sandbox -- click on Sandbox in the upper right to get there.  You can model the article after other album articles, and ask for feedback here.  Look through the Tutorial if you haven't done so already.  You can also refer to the album article style guide.  The article will need to include at least a few reliable, third-party references -- for a notable album like Dream Cave you can generally find those using Google or another web search site.  Have fun, and let us know how it goes. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your reply! I will certainly start writing the article in my Sandbox and update this page with my progress. It's great to get some support from a fellow Wikipedian, especially a Most Pluperfect Labutnum!! Thanks heaps! - Hori.horizontal (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC) - THERE IS NO SPOON
 * That's good advice from Mudwater – it will help if you can provide some details about the album's recording, and reviews from accepted reliable sources, i.e. not blogs or fansites, newspapers or music magazines would be best. Richard3120 (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah thanks for that! The Triple J alternative radio station has a lot of info (I think) as they "featured" the album and nominated it for their album of the year. Triple J are fairly well renowned in the Aussie alternative scene so I will probably be citing them frequently. Any others that you would recommend using as sources? Thanks! Hori.horizontal (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC) - THERE IS NO SPOON
 * Hey, is there any album articles that you suggest modelling my own on? Hori.horizontal (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have friends in Australia so I know Triple J is considered the leading alternative radio station in the country. Here are some online reviews I found that I think would all be considered reliable by Wikipedia: Allmusic http://www.allmusic.com/album/dream-cave-mw0002557970, Clash Music http://www.clashmusic.com/reviews/cloud-control-dream-cave, PopMatters http://www.popmatters.com/review/cloud-control-dream-cave/, The Guardian (UK newspaper) http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/sep/12/cloud-control-dream-cave-review, DIY http://diymag.com/archive/cloud-control-dream-cave/. There was also one in the UK's Q magazine last year but there is no online version, I'd have to go and look at the print version but I'm not likely to be able to do that for some time. Richard3120 (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What a champion! Thanks heaps for those links!! Will definitely set aside some time the next few weeks to draft up the article! I will post here and tag you again if I need any assistance, but otherwise I will let you know when I am finishing up!! Thanks again! Hori.horizontal (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC) - THERE IS NO SPOON

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Albums articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Perfect Sound Forever
Can we use Perfect Sound Forever (magazine) as a reliable source? The creator of the site Jason Gross has written as a freelance writer for various outputs: Village Voice (from 1998 to 2013), PopMatters (2005-2013) Red Bull Music Academy, Time Out, Spin (2006-2010), The Wire, Relix. etc. (more sources here).

The site was also used in several published books on musicians such as Rock 'til You Drop: The Decline from Rebellion to Nostalgia (published by Verso), The Story of Crass (published by Omnibus Press), and Recombo DNA: The Story of Devo, or How the '60s Became the '80s (published by Hal Leonard Corporation), just to name a few.

Gross' work is referenced through RocksBackPages, notably the large amount of interviews he's done over the years.

So is this site a yay or a nay? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The site is not the question, it's the reviewers. Are they professionals? It seems that they are. Are they recognized as such or as "staff" on the site? Are the reviewers recognized as professionals on other sites? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not really interested in it specifically for reviews, but for interviews, if that makes sense. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The credentials of that site are VERY impressive. I'd say, absolutely it's a reliable source. Interviews are statements by the band members, so they would automatically be reliable per WP:SPS anyway.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 14:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Good to know! Just want to have some sort of reference for this being a good source before I try and push forward with a GA on a certain album. . . :) I still look forward to anyone else who'd like to chime in on this so we can have a stronger consensus. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Live in the Studio albums
I'm looking for some guidance/consensus on how to provide infobox categories (ie. "live album"/"studio album" for an album that is
 * 1) Recorded "live" in the studio, or
 * 2) A mix of live and studio recordings (e.g. double disc with one live and one studio disc)

DISEman (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If the album is a mix of live and studio recordings, you can set up the infobox to say "Studio album / Live album" -- see for example Eat a Peach. As far as an album recorded live in the studio, what do you mean by that exactly?  If a band goes into a studio and records an album by playing as if they were live, and releases the recording without any overdubs, I'd consider that to be a studio album, but I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * To me, a live album is one recorded live infront of a crowd at a gig, or at least in a empty warehouse. Studio is just that - recorded in the studio, regardless of how many takes/overdubs were needed.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Label it as a studio album, as the studio album link already has wording to explain this possible confusion: Although studio albums can be recorded using large multitrack systems with many overdubs and different takes of the same instrument, many albums are still recorded live by the musician(s), in order to reproduce the feel and energy of a live performance. Often basic parts such as drums and rhythm guitar will be recorded live, then overdubs such as solos and vocals recorded later. Studio albums are often recorded, mixed and mastered at different facilities, often due to touring restrictions and time constraints of the artist or financial considerations. Be sure to also go into detail about how the album was recorded live in the article body, though. Cheers, —Fezmar9 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with this. If it was recorded in a studio, in one take or a million, it'd be a studio album, even if it was all done in one take. (That's how some used to make studio albums anyways.) The article's respective Background/History/Writing and Recording/etc type section can delve into to details of it. Sergecross73   msg me  16:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your assistance DISEman (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Many supposedly live albums are actually re-recorded in the studio, to a greater or lesser extent, with some having only crowd sounds from the original concert. Conversely, some bands perform concerts, with an audience, in a recording- or television- studio, and record and release those without (much) overdubbing. Good luck sorting that lot out! Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes - I note the dilemmas with the Kiss Alive! 1975–2000 series and (conversely) Nighthawks at the Diner - Mudwater provided the answer to my dilemma with the articles for Initiate (Nels Cline Singers album) and Open, Coma so at least I'm clear for my original purposes DISEman (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG comments subpages cleanup
Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Albums articles that would be affected by this action are these: If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Albums' use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Halo Original Soundtrack
 * The Music of Grand Theft Auto IV

BZ20
Hi,the large-scale content removal, particularly by Footballfan49, seems to be vandalism but I don't have the topic knowledge to judge how far back down the history to revert to. Can you help, please? Just Chilling (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The removal of content on BZ20 was not vandalism. It was unexplained, but it was correct. See WP:BADCHARTS. The "charts" listed, iTunes and Amazon, are not charts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Just Chilling (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Albums by year vs. Debut albums by year - why separate?
My apologies if this has been covered/discussed to death before, but I'm new here. I'd be curious to know the reason why, when I'm looking at the yearly pages of album releases, "debut albums" are not included. I understand the usefulness of a debut albums category, though I would consider "debut albums" a subset of "albums". What is the thinking behind not assigning debut albums both categories? Or perhaps more to the point--is someone going to undo my changes if I add the album by year category to pages for debut albums? Caseyroberson (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For the very reason you state: debut albums are a subset of albums. Since, for example, Category:2014 albums is a parent category to Category:2014 debut albums, one can infer that any album categorized as a 2014 debut album is also a 2014 album. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 23:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Take, for instance, this page for a debut album from 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Summers . On the page itself, it has the category for "2014 debut albums", but not the category "2014 albums". I guess what I'm saying is this: when I go to the page of all albums from 2014, I would expect this album to show up in the list with all the others, but it doesn't. What I'm looking for is either a) permission to start adding a category of "2014 albums" to pages like this or b) someone to tell me that it was decided that no one should do this. Caseyroberson (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia.  Category:2014 debut albums is in fact a subcategory of Category:2014 albums, and it's listed as such near the top of the second category's page.  You can click through from there to the subcategory.  And, yes, it was decided long ago that the broader category should not be added to the page for an article -- see WP:SUBCAT where it says, "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category..." For whatever it's worth, I agree that in some ways this is not the most convenient setup. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A straight answer from someone online--thanks! Caseyroberson (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

What makes a review relevant enough to be included?
I read some discussion about Robert Christgau's reviews, which is what made me ask this question: is there a guideline for which albums can link to which reviews? The Robert Christgau case is an interesting one because people often give "the review is written by Robert Christgau!" as a reason to include his reviews. To me, this seems similar to an Argument from authority, which is commonly considered a logical fallacy if it is not supported by additional arguments. Similarly, I (a completely unknown reviewer) might write a brilliant album review, but this would probably be rejected on similar grounds. While I don't mind this personally (I am not planning to get into album reviewing anyway), I do think this is a bit of a problem. Is a review's author the only selection criterion that we currently use, or is there more to it? If the former, is this something that can be changed, or are there reasons for this that I am not aware of? Arno Sluismans (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * in general, a review is considered useful if it has been published by a reliable source; the review has undergone some sort of editing or review process and wasn't just self-published by the reviewer on a blog or personal website—Christgau's reviews are generally professionally published, even if they are being accessed from his personal website. from the Albums style guide: "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)". a fairly comprehensive list of common sources is also available. hope that helps! ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 15:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not as a major note, but I'll often pass on Christgau's reviews as his prose barely gives anyone any idea of why he did or did not like an album. Not to mention seeing some of his symbols like a giant N or a pair of scissors makes no sense to the average reviewer. I know he's a long respected music reviewer and has written for several magazines, but these images and such don't really help people out of their original context. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My two cents: I agree with Andrzejbanas' sentiments regarding Mr Christgau. I'm sure the latter's reviews for Blender and the like are more substantial, but his two-sentence Consumer Guide Reviews often offer nothing informative (or anything even comprehensible in some cases). And "N", two stars, three stars, etc (i.e. his more recent rating system) is a mystery to most people, I suggest. I'm relieved to read here that others feel a degree of discernment is needed, even when it comes to a "name" such as Robert Christgau – because one editor who works on many album articles seems to make a point of exalting RC's position way above its due. (In other words: if it's Christgau, then it just has to be included.) Like I say, if the critique is a genuine review, then fine. But currently, imo, the weight given to those Consumer Guide Reviews in album ratings boxes way exceeds their importance. This is especially so when there might be a far more in-depth review from another notable source but it ends up being excluded due to the box's maximum of ten ratings/scores. JG66 (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Boy Is Mine
Page move proposed; discuss there by clicking above. --George Ho (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Reviews
Can cited quotes come from articles (from reliable sources) that are not on an album, but do give a brief review of the album? And does a review need to be contemporary to be cited? --Lpdte77 (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be better to use retrospective reviews that focus on the topic as there's little proof the reviewer really listened to it. Try to stick to articles where the journalist/writer/author/whatever is sticking to their primary topic at hand and not making off hand comments about something that we as a reader have no real idea on how recently they have looked into that material. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But that is not for us as editors to wonder/try to interpret; I'm not sure what you mean by "proof the reviewer really listened to it"... it's a reliable source writing about the album; that could theoretically apply to any reliable source whether contemporary or not. Since retrospectives reviews are then allowed (I believed they were but wanted to make sure), If a reliable source briefly reviews an album say on an article on the band then it can be used. Whether they recently listened to it or listened to it 5 years ago or whatever shouldn't be relevant. Retrospective quotes should then be referenced as retrospective (e.g., "in a retrospective review...) I think to give context to reader. Thanks to all editors here for their helpful responses. --Lpdte77 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion contemporary reviews (those written shortly after the album was released) are preferable, but it's also perfectly fine to include retrospective reviews (those written a long time after the album was released). Similarly with the cited references, quotes from full-blown reviews of the album are best, but it's also okay to use quotes from other sources -- for example, an article about a band that also includes some critical commentary on the particular album.   Could you please explain a bit more about the retrospective reviews?  I don't get what you mean about little proof that the reviewer really listened to it. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Vague questions are not helpful
 * If the quote is directly related to the album, then it may be used, provided that it's from a reliable source. For instance, if the question is about its use in popular culture, a quote from a celebrity in a celebrity magazine stating that the album helped them through a difficult time would be appropriate.
 * If the quote is about the album, it doesn't need to be a recent writing. For instance if a quote about a Benny Goodman recording can be found from a contemporary, but published in the 1940s, would be appropriate.
 * What would not be appropriate is a "review" (ie, "that album sucks the life out me") from a non-professional in a different discussion would not be appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Andrrzebanas and Mudwater sum it up pretty well - its preferrable to use dedicated reviews at the time of release, but as Walter says, a lot of it can depend on the actual scenario. Sometimes these "retrospective reviews" are the only way to add any content or satisfy notability concerns without tracking down some print magazines from the 80s or 90s, which many times isn't possible or likely to happen. In those scenarios, retrospective reviews would certainly be better than nothing. Sergecross73   msg me  15:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Retrospective reviews are also if critical opinion of an album has changed over the years. Weezer's Pinkerton album is an excellent example of this - Rolling Stone even changed their original, three-star rating to a five-star rating.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 17:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This can actually add an interesting perspective sometimes. I've seen a few cases where an album received pretty decent reviews upon release, but was later seen as a failure and was captured in news articles for the following album, years later. Something like, "...hopefully this new album demonstrates more creativity than their lackluster 2013 album, BlahBlahBlah." Only high-profile albums will ever receive a retrospective review, and usually they'll only be for albums that were seen as better than worse as time went on, so this is the only way to capture this retrospective sense of "hmm, maybe that album wasn't that great now that I think about it." I'm having trouble coming up with a music/album example, but this video game example should do: when the game Battlefield 4 was released in 2013, it was met with stellar views, usually 8 or 9 out of 10. However, as time went on and gamers couldn't get past all of the game-crippling bugs and glitches (see Battlefield 4 § Technical issues and legal troubles) and it was retrospectively seen as a flop. If you only capture what's said in reviews for Battlefield 4, the review section will actually be inaccurate. News articles can also sometimes be the only way to capture what the fans say about an album, which I think can sometimes be important if it differs from what music critics say, but it's also very difficult to capture accurately and reliably what fans of band say. So, to wrap up my thoughts here, stick with straight-forward album reviews first and foremost, but look to articles for different perspectives. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point too, what ¿3family6 touched on above. That is a rarity I think, albums receiving praise initially and then years later deemed a failure. Retrospectives in that case would definitely be noteworthy in the reception section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapadite77 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus Piece (jewelry)
Page move is discussed; join in. --George Ho (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Fly Like an Eagle
Page move requested; discuss there. --George Ho (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Superdrag's Señorita EP
Superdrag's Señorita EP was released first as two separate 7" records in 1994. The records were re-released as a CD in 1999. All of which were on Darla. Not sure how to cite this other than being alive and owning the physical copies. I can scan them if necessary. Just thought someone might want to fix this error. Thanks, --Eric Schultz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericapnea (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding album notability
Does an album need to meet each of the 7 criteria presented at WP:NALBUMS for it to be notable? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. All that is really necessary is that it meets the WP:GNG. WP:NALBUMS is just a method to see if that is likely or not. Sergecross73   msg me  14:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So is there any point in referring to WP:NALBUMS at all then? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there is. It can be sort of a timesaver, in discussions like WP:AFD. For example, you can dig up a ton of detailed sources covering the album in detail, or you can point out that the album charted in a national/major chart, and therefore, is almost certain to have the sourcing/coverage necessary to meet the WP:GNG. Its more of an indicator of whether or not its likely to be notable. Lots of these sorts of things exist - WP:NSONGS, WP:NBAND, etc. Sergecross73   msg me  14:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * An album does not need to meet all seven criteria of WP:NALBUMS. One or two is enough.
 * I disagree with Sergecross73 though. An album could meet ALBUMS without meeting GNG. It's easier to prove that an album was in high rotation, from an online source's list of "spins", and also be listed as topping a nations charts without having any additional coverage. It could be that the coverage is not online because of the age of the recording. In short, GNG and the criteria here are independent. GNG is not a higher standard than this criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's mostly a non-issue, considering how similar NALBUMS point #1 and the GNG are pretty much the same thing, and any album that meets points 2 through 7, like major charting or award-based accomplishments, are going to have the coverage to satisfy the GNG. In my experience, the GNG tends to trump these more specific guidelines, but again, its rarely if ever that it happens to begin with. The point was that it absolutely doesn't need to meet all 7 points, which was the original question. Sergecross73   msg me  17:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Serge. The first sentence of NALBUMS itself says they are the same thing: "all articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines". An album doesn't have to meet any of the specific criteria if it satisfies GNG. I look at the list as indicators of an album's notability, not its criteria. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help guys. So, just to clarify, WP:GNG is the baseline by which notability is measured, and WP:NALBUMS are a set of criteria that help to measure whether or not an album would meet WP:GNG, right? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 15:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sea of Tranquliity
Hi, just making some discussion to see whether or not Sea of Tranquility should be used as a source or not. It appears it was a print magazine at one point if that helps: FAQ page here. Any thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It shows up in the list at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, but no link to any discussion is provided. I'm not saying one way or the other (to me, it seems like one of those "use its reviews if there's nothing better out there" sources), but if anyone knows of a previous discussion, it would be worth linking there. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to know how it originally ended up on the unreliable sources section. I've seen it used as a pro review on many album articles (almost to the point of spamming), but have gone ahead and removed it based on its non-inclusion as an acceptable review site. Maybe I was too bold in doing so? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On a personal level, I think they write a good review. But on a Wikipedia level, I think it's mostly just some guys writing it without any real accreditation or editorial policy. Just one of a million amateur blogs. I'd love to be proven wrong though. Sergecross73   msg me  20:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think the content itself is bad persay, but I don't really know we should use it or not. Perhaps this would be a better site to take to the WP:RS discussion site? The only thing I can get from this site was that it's been around for a longtime and it was in print for a very brief period. The profiles of the reviewers don't really show them in too bright of a light though as they all sort of scream "we're really big fans!" etc. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Sea of Tranquility is a well respected progressive rock magazine, an authority on the genre. It is a very reliable source. 64.134.96.198 (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's...very easy to say, but do you have anything backing these claims? Sergecross73   msg me  17:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Double that with this person seems to shouting out the site's praise in their edit history. That's part of the reason I wanted to bring it up here as I'm not super huge on progressive rock, so I figured I'd tried to find some sources. Perhaps I'll ask on wikiproject prog as well? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's an instance of a progressive rock musician referring to Sea of Tranquility as an authority: Net Dot Music cites Sea of Tranquility here:  Prog Rock Music Talk cites Sea of Tranquility here:  64.134.96.198 (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at these sources, the first two appears to be just using blurbs about the reviews, but that doesn't really suggest their notability. The last one is from a blogspot account. Do you have anything better? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Those other sites look far more questionable than Sea of Tranquility, so them vouching for them doesn't really mean much... Sergecross73   msg me  19:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A few things about this: 1) You can also find "respected" musicians using review blurbs from and praising Metal Archives and that site has been discussed to death and doesn't look like it's going to pass muster anytime soon. The page wasn't even deemed notable enough to have it's own article here, unlike MA. 2) Even if this site is accepted as a reliable source, one review saying that Mudvayne isn't nu-metal (the reason this discussion is even taking place) shouldn't be enough to keep that genre out of the band's page, when there are other sources that say otherwise. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sergecross73   msg me  21:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, seems we are sort of agreeing here and/or not finding any notable material outside people using blurbs from it. Hell, in film trailers now they quote about how great a film is from random twitter accounts, so much for notability. So unless someone comes up with something outside random blurbs, do we generally agree that the site is not-notable? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd assume its not usuable until someone can prove otherwise. Its clear this IP is not on the right track. You could always bring it up at the WP:RSN if you wanted more closure on it. I can try to delve into it again as well, its been a while since I've looked into it much... Sergecross73   msg me  01:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, SonOfPlisskin, but SEA OF TRANQUILITY IS AN AUTHORITY ON PROGRESSIVE ROCK AND METAL, which you are not. And you've been actively harassing me and attacking me (calling me a troll) and I reported you on the noticeboard for your bad behavior. Sea of Tranquility is a reliable source, one, and Mudvayne is NOT nu-metal and the reason why it shouldn't be in the Infobox is because Sea of Tranquility, an AUTHORITY ON THE GENRE, says that Mudvayne is progressive, and the sources for nu-metal are NOT AUTHORITIES ON THE GENRE, which Sea of Tranquility is.64.134.96.198 (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop repeating yourself. We understand your general stance. We just don't agree with it, and you're not doing a good job of proving otherwise. (Repeating yourself without any better rationale isn't working.) Sergecross73   msg me  01:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There is evidence of Sea of Tranquility being a reliable source. There is no evidence of Mudvayne being a nu-metal band. 64.134.96.198 (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So, unless all you have to add is shouting in all caps. You keep claiming it's a source, but have yet to show anything describing it's notability outside band's using it a promotional tool. Have any authors written for other sources? I see their page and only find that they are really big fans of the genre. Do you work for them or something? ;) If you aren't finding anything, I think we can call this discussion closed shortly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion is going nowhere. You were not able to provide any solid proof for the notability of the source and neither we can. Repeating that they're an authority in the genre without any backing will neither improve the discussion nor get nu metal removed from the article. (As Sergecross73 stated, it is already backed with reliable sources, no matter how you claim the otherwise). Myxomatosis57 (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, sorry, Sea of Tranquility is an authority on progressive rock and metal. End of story. Now let's get back to facts and reason and stop trying to convince me that the lies are truth. 64.134.96.198 (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of burden of proof? If you want to be taken seriously, you need to do the necessary work. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've provided evidence of Sea of Tranquility's notability. All you've done is abuse and threaten me and accuse me of being another editor that stopped being active long before I even found Wikipedia. 64.134.96.198 (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

PopMatters has featured contributions by one of Sea of Tranquility's writers: "Jordan Blum holds an MFA in Creative Writing and is the founder/Editor-in-Chief of an online literary/multimedia journal called The Bookends Review. He specializes in progressive rock and also writes for Delusions of Adequacy, Examiner, and Sea of Tranquility" 64.134.96.198 (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

More citations of Sea of Tranquility here:    64.134.96.198 (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, most of those are review blurbs. Are you going to say that all the magazines/websites listed on those sites are notable and are made up of experts?. Two of your sources are practically the same just mentioning that Jordan Blum (I'll leave whether he should be considered as a notable source or not to others) writes for the site. That still doesn't prove that the other writers (most importantly in this case, Ken Pierce) has serious credentials. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So since we only have one user who hasn't been convincing anyone, can we state consensus that we don't consider this site a reliable source? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing provided by the IP was remotely close to giving a valid argument in favor of reliablilty. Now that he's stopped, I've looked into the site some. It does say that they were a print magazine for a bit, which could be an argument for reliability, but it was pretty short - a few years and the releases were only quarterly - and then they were bought out by a company, and returned to just being a website. While most print magazines are considered reliable...this was pretty fleeting and over a decade ago, so I don't think that angle works here. Looking over the editors bios, it looks like they're all basically "X Sales/Business/Tech person by day, prog rock enthusiast by night". They seem to be less "journalists", and more "a bunch of guys who like prog." So...my vote is "not reliable". Sergecross73   msg me  18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, by whose standards is this not a reliable source? The magazine is frequently cited by prog/hard rock/metal fans and bands. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * By the standards we have listed on WP:RS and from the discussion above. People using it to promote themselves doesn't count and neither do fans as anyone can say anything, doesn't make it worth noting. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How can Sea of Tranquility be an "unreliable" source if they have a far more professional website than Piero Scaruffi? No, sorry, Sea of Tranquility has been proven to be a reliable source and your aggressive opinion pushing to the point of declaring SOT to be unreliable in spite of discussion and evidence proves that you are too far invested in your emotional outbursts and need to step away from this discussion. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Every part of this comment confuses me. I don't see any emotional outbursts, beyond maybe that initial IP who posed the question, and I have no idea why you'd think PS is a good reference point when consensus is that 99% of his reviews are also unusable. Sergecross73   msg me  16:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking over this discussion, and I see very little addressing the reliability of Sea of Tranquility. What there is mostly discussion of is its notability, which can help determine reliability, but is not crucial. A source can be reliable without being notable. There are thousands of academic books that would never warrant an article on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that they aren't reliable. Here is the definition of a reliable source for Wikipedia: "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WikiProject Albums has an additional guideline: "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." So, how does Sea of Tranquility hold up? It has an editorial and writing staff, is published by a third-party (i.e., the writers themselves do not publish the content), and, though not essential for reliability standards, it was formerly a print magazine. The only sticky part is how do we determine a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Mentions by other sources do not translate into a reputation for accuracy. A reputation for accuracy translates into a reputation for accuracy. The best determiner of that would be people who know of the publication and can speak to its reputation and accuracy. Now, if you want mentions in other sources, in order to help determine its influence and impact, there are two books which cite the publication: Alice in Chains: In the Studio (page unknown) and Rammstein on Fire: New Perspectives on the Music and Performances, page 87. So far, I'm seeing a case for this publication being reliable. A note to the IP above though: Piero Scaruffi has been determined not to be a reliable source on Wikipedia, except for his reviews and articles that were published by a third party.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 04:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with part of what you say, part of the reason it was being deemed unreliable was simply that no one was coming up with a valid reason for it being reliable. (That IP just kept on saying it was reliable over and over again.) However, your stance ignored a bunch of what I mentioned, and they were certainly argument related to reliability. For instance, the staff. They have no qualifications as journalists or writers. They're all "I work as a banker during the day, and write here at night. Here's 30 prog bands I love." Or "I played in a band in the 70's, and then started a family. I still love music though!" This makes them a reliable source in music articles? Secondly, yes, they were a print magazine, for a very short time. They released 8 magazines, and ceased doing that in 2001. I've only browsed over the info, but its hard to tell if any staff even still originate from that time period. They don't seem to have an editorial policy either. Here's they're "About Us" page, for reference]. Sergecross73   msg me  16:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore those comments - those are legitimate points of discussion. Sadly, very little of the content above dealt with discussing those points (which is not your fault). I did see the FAQ before I commented, as I wanted to see if the publication actually had an editorial staff. It does, so the content is not self-published. This doesn't automatically make it reliable, but it satisfies a major criteria. The main point of sources being published by a third party is that it guarantees that someone other than the author can vouch for the content and so the source isn't just some person spouting off. The founder, James Bickers, was a writer and radio host, which would I think make him knowledgeable enough to run a publication, but I don't know if he specialized in music criticism as a writer or host. He did work, later on, as assistant editor for Progression, but that might be after he left SoT. The publisher, Pete Pardo, works for Safari Books Online as a general account manager, so I would say he knows something about the business of writing and publication. Michael Popke and Dean Pedley have written for print magazines that would unquestionably be considered reliable, so they certainly have credentials. The other writers do not appear to have written for other publications, but I would not consider that a disqualification. It does mean, however, that their reviews should take lower priority than Popke's and Pedley's, and certainly should take lower priority if there are a large number of reviews to choose from to mention in a Wikipedia article. The big questions that remain are: 1) do they have an editorial policy? This does not have to be expressly proclaimed on the site, however. It need only exist. The policy is probably the most important factor, as the more eyes there are on the writing, the more reliable the publication is. 2) Do they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? The problem with both this question and the first one is how to answer those questions. Citations in other media don't really speak to those questions.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 18:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I discovered that Jordan Blum also writes for PopMatters and Progression, among others. I think that many of the other staff write for other publications as well.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * These are all pretty vague in terms of assuring the quality of the site. I appreciate the information dug up though! But having one or two who have written for some sites, among a group of over a dozen who don't seem to state and written sources, I'm still finding this site lacking. As we can't find any source on it's reputation or accuracy, I've examined around the web and jouranl archives at my university without any luck of any publication using this as a source. I'm still heavily leaning towards not using it unless, y'know, your absolutely desperate. but if you are, should the article even really exist then? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I also don't believe being a "senior account manager" necessarily qualifies someone either. Sometimes those types of positions are strictly "sales/commissions", and the actual business side of it is handled by other people. All it says is he works sales really... Sergecross73   msg me  15:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

One thing that might be relevant is that Batmura was spamming Sea of Tranquility references across a ton of articles, especially using refs that were written by Sea of Tranquility staff writer Murat Batmaz. Batmura was doing this in 2011 and 2014. This conflict-of-interest promotion should not have diminished the authority of Sea of Tranquility but it did increase my vigilance and cynicism. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Another possibly relevant bit of information is that Sea of Tranquility gets an average of 1,052 views per day, with viewers only looking at 1.5 pages on the average visit, so it is not very widely seen. To give a sense of scale, in the 2000s I used to run a personal website telling people what I do for a living and what was on my calendar, and it had just a little bit less traffic than Sea of Tranquility. Alexa said my website was worth $2000 while they say seaoftranquility.org is worth $2303, based on traffic. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You can find something about Ken pierce here, where he is presented as a photo journalist, and on his Facebook page: Lewismaster (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

addition to WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES
I'd like to add Classic Rock magazine to the list of sources. This 2010 Guardian piece reports it as one of the UK's best-selling music magazines. Looking at the October 2014 issue and one I've dug up from June 2010, the album reviewers include Charles Shaar Murray, David Quantick and David Stubbs, along with a host of names I recognise from UK mags such as Mojo, Record Collector, Uncut and Q: Terry Staunton, Paul Moody, Neil Jeffries, Gavin Martin, Paul Sexton, Kris Needs. Many of the magazine's reviews are available online; although, from the ones I've checked, I notice that the 10-point rating/score from the print magazine isn't reproduced with the online review. JG66 (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems perfectly reasonable to me - that would be a nice addition to the list of sources. — sparklism hey! 12:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely support. Most hard copy print magazines tend to meet the requirements, let alone the credentials you mentioned above... Sergecross73   msg me  13:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this magazine has helped me quite a lot with sourcing for numerous times. Victão Lopes  Fala! 13:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Another person here supporting the magazine's use as a source – it's widely available in the UK and produced by the same publishers as Metal Hammer, another popular heavy metal & rock magazine. Many of the writers have extensive journalistic backgrounds that can easily be found with some research... I can't see any reason not to include it, and it will be useful for sources on rock artists and albums from the past, in much the same way as Mojo is primarily a "retro" magazine. Richard3120 (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, perfectly good source. --Michig (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. I've just added the magazine to the list of sources. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Lists etc at Acclaimed Music
Does anyone know whether Acclaimed Music is an acceptable source to support mention of an album or song's inclusion/position in critics' best-of polls and lists? The website's not great, in that it's impossible to provide a direct link to a particular album or even a year. But click on a particular year, then an album or a song, and details are provided of a work's inclusion in a lot of interesting (and notable) lists … Any thoughts? JG66 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it seems that individual pages can be located by album and song through a google search (i.e., [album/song title] + Acclaimed Music). There are a few album articles for which I'd like to use Acclaimed as the source for positions on critics' lists and/or reviewer ratings – Layla and All Things Must Pass, for example. So, if anyone's got any objections, I'd obviously rather hear them now(!). JG66 (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It mostly looks like lists of links to other reviews/listings. I'd recommend using the source linked by Acclaimed Music. If that source is unavailable, then yes, I'd say use Acclaimed Music.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 15:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, but the problem (if it's a problem) is that many of those links appear to be to sites that I doubt are RS. Take the page for the Layla album: Classic Rocks "The 100 Greatest British Rock Albums Ever (2006)" takes us to a Rocklist.net page. Same thing when following the NMEs "The 100 Greatest British Albums Ever (2006)" from All Things Must Pass at Acclaimed. Other links I've checked for Q or Mojo "critics' best" lists take us to similar list-oriented sites. So I'm thinking, given that Acclaimed Music warrants a page here on Wikipedia, it's more than likely we would be having to rely solely on the Acclaimed album page, rather than the link/source provided there. It's encouraging that you support using it as a source if the link is somehow unavailable – because there's some incredibly good information at Acclaimed that I've never been able to find anywhere else online. (Paul Gambaccini's 1977 book is one – with input from top US and UK critics.) JG66 (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Judging from the critical response to Acclaimed Music mentioned on its Wikipedia article, I think it'd be fine to use it as a source, .-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 15:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah fabulous. Yes, I think there's enough there to demonstrate to readers and editors that info given on the site can be considered reliable. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Uncut at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES
Been meaning to raise this for a while. Starting with the April 2012 issue, Uncut changed its rating system from stars (max. five) to scores out of ten (this from a RateYourMusic user). Online though, Uncut's site reproduces pre-April '12 reviews mixing the two systems; in other words, an album that originally received 5 out of 5 stars ends up with a numerical score of 5 out of 10. It's most noticeable when a work that was the mag's Album of the Year receives an apparently average rating online of 5/10. Another example is Bowie's Reality (2003), the online review for which carries a 4/10 rating, whereas – and the quote beginning "While it's very much a rock album …" is common to both – Metacritic records the mag's 2003 review as 80 (= 4/5). Or take Clapton's Me and Mr. Johnson: Uncut gave it 4 stars out of 5 in 2004, according to the Muze-created product description at CD Universe, or 80 again at Metacritic; online at uncut.co.uk, it's rendered as 4/10. (Again, there's a quote common to all those sources: "at 58, he sounds like a man …")

So, while adding a specific date at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES for when the magazine crossed over to its new rating system might be welcome, I wonder whether it might be an idea to also add something that comments on this discrepancy. Reason being, there are hundreds (thousands?) of album reviews available at uncut.co.uk, but their usefulness is compromised, from the point of view of including a rating, at least. Any thoughts? JG66 (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I encountered this same problem as I was working on The Hungry Saw, which uncut.co.uk lists as 3/10 but Metacritic lists that review as 60/100 . The album is from 2008, so this would fall before the Uncut changeover date you described, hence we get the problem.
 * I agree that we should add a note to WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES that clarifies this - it would be even better if we could find something to reference this with on the Uncut website that acknowledges that the problem exists.
 * And are you suggesting that we should 'double' the affected scores when using them in the reviews template? That would kinda make sense to me. — sparklism hey! 13:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well 3/10 is a massive difference from 3 stars (out of 5)! I'm surprised you didn't ditch Uncut there and access another reviewer rating at Metacritic, if one's available. (You're right, of course, that's what the source says – 3/10 – but it is misleading, and the Metacritic score confirms it.)
 * I agree, something more about the discrepancies would be very welcome. Save for contacting Uncut and getting them to acknowledge the problem somehow, I don't know what we can do.
 * To answer your question: I wasn't really thinking of doubling the scores, no. I'd be more in favour of rendering the album rating as 3 stars out of 5, in the case of The Hungry Saw, then adding buried text next to the score (you know, text inside "<" and ">") explaining the issue and mentioning the correct Metacritic score. I suppose it's no different from what you're saying – doubling the existing score – but it can be supported by what appears on Metacritic, and (in some cases) on the various sites that carry Muze's product info. Plus, of course, those highlight quotes strengthen the claim.
 * I guess I'm hoping that consensus here will allow us to add something to WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES; any "buried" text next to the album ratings could then refer to this addition, adding a bit more weight. And perhaps we could come up with a standard wording to accompany Uncut pre-2012 ratings (however we convert them: back to stars, or forward to ten-point scores). The infobox at The Beatles certainly isn't short of instructions of the don't-do-this/don't-do-that variety! All in all, though, I can't help thinking we need to get something rolling at the source: Uncut. If an editor or publisher there hears, "You know, your reviews are being overlooked in Wikipedia album articles, and your mag's presence on the encyclopaedia is diminished as a result. You're missing out on a whole load of free traffic to your site …" I don't know – it might get a result, right?! JG66 (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that the best solution would be to get Uncut to fix the problem for us by reverting their old review scores back to 5-star ratings where appropriate. I had a quick look at their website, but I can't see a "contact us" button, though I note that they do have a social media presence at Facebook and Twitter - maybe we could get the ball rolling by trying there?
 * As far as a solution for us right now, I like the idea of reverting to the 5-star rating with buried text (so for The Hungry Saw I'd use instead of 3/10 and include some buried text to describe why). How about something along the lines of "Note that uncut.co.uk scores for pre-2012 albums do not always accurately reflect the magazine's old 5-star rating" as a starter for 10? (sounds too wordy to me, I just want to get the ball rolling....)
 * And for The Hungry Saw, I'm not exactly blessed with reviews, and the Uncut one was one of the more middling ones, so I wanted to include it to provide a balanced view. Cheers! — sparklism hey! 15:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "wordy" is the order of the day, sparklism – whatever it takes! I'll have a think about how to stir up some action at Uncut. Knowing something about the media, especially publishing, I think it's a case of going straight to the editor. Aside from what I was talking about above, their online reviewer ratings are misrepresenting the magazine, misrepresenting a lot of notable music journalists.
 * Didn't mean to sound like I was disapproving of you going with that 3/10, btw. Not at all – my point was just that it illustrates how ridiculous the situation is, because we should only reproduce the incorrect detail they've put online (which is what I meant about Uncut reviews being overlooked, because I've certainly had to avoid including a few pre-2012 ones). If it helps, I just found a score from Blender included in the product description for The Hungry Saw here. I'd wondered about the legitimacy of CD Universe as a source, at first, but ended up figuring it was okay because the info's generated by Muze. (Actually I think I just bowed to consensus at the relevant talk page discussion – here.) JG66 (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As Sparklism knows, I've come across this issue as well, and I've noticed that other editors who are unaware of the change have used the newer ratings, not always correctly. My personal opinion is to use the "out of five stars" rating for pre-2012 reviews and the "out of 10" for reviews since the change, but I appreciate that might mean changing a lot of articles and it might not be worth it. Richard3120 (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've changed the Uncut rating in The Hungry Saw based on this discussion. And thanks for the link, JG66 (you didn't come across as disapproving at all, btw). Cheers! — sparklism hey! 20:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks everyone. I took a stab at dealing with this on the Sources page. Just thinking though, it would be better to also advise editors to add an explanation in what I've been referring to as "buried text". (And perhaps remove mention of gaining consensus? – I wouldn't want to encourage that each and every instance lead to a debate. Wouldn't want to discourage discussion either, of course …) So does anyone know the correct term for this type of text, the "buried text"? JG66 (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Although it isn't explicitly named as such at Help:Cheatsheet, I think the correct term is "hidden text". — sparklism hey! 11:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I should've looked harder - see Help:Hidden text :) — sparklism hey! 11:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, you looked harder than I did! Thanks – I'll reword the text soon. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Just reworded to include mention of hidden text as a place for explanation in the album article. (Wordy or what?!) If anyone has a better idea about how to address this on the WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES page, please discuss and/or go for it. Perhaps a link to this talk page discussion might allow for cutting down what's needed there? Not sure … JG66 (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

How to phrase a first album released on a label
As more artists are spending a considerable amount of time in an indie and self-promoted marketplace, I'd like some ideas on how to list album articles.

If an artist releases an independent album or two and then gets signed to a major label, does that major label release become the artist's debut album or first album or is it their second or third release? Does it depend on the sources? Does it depend on sales of those indie releases? Does it depend on whether reliable sources recognize any of those indie releases? Is there any universally applicable criteria that can be applied or does it need to be examined individually? Some assistance would be appreciated.
 * I would say follow what sources say. For instance, Resurrection Band released two independent albums before it released Awaiting Your Reply through Star Song, yet Awaiting Your Reply is practically universally considered the band's debut by fans and by sources.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is how I usually handle it too. Sergecross73   msg me  18:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)