Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 62

Adding Invisible Oranges to reliable sources
Invisible Oranges is a heavy metal online music magazine that has been around since 2006. It has had at least fifty different writers over the years publishing articles. The website is currently used in over 200 music-related Wikipedia articles, mainly as sources, but also as review ratings and as direct links for quotes from interviews (What Links Here). As another heavy metal blog of the same caliber, MetalSucks, is already listed as a reliable sources, would Invisible Oranges also qualify? LOCdataLKR44 (talk) August 23, 2020, 12:00 (UTC)
 * Before we get into that, it seems like about 99% of your edits are related to the website. That’s...not common. Do you have a connection to the site? You’re supposed to disclose it if you do. Sergecross73   msg me  16:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh dear me no! I work for the Library of Congress! I thought that my username made that clear. I just happen to be a long-time reader of the blog and noticed that a redirect article had been created several years ago, but no real article. LOCdataLKR44 (talk) August 23, 2020, 13:18 (UTC)
 * Well, people can make usernames about whatever they want more or less, so I tend to look at their actual edits more than their names. Anyways, here’s some things to consider when figuring out whether or not a source is reliable/usable in the Wikipedia context:
 * Is there an editorial staff?
 * Is there editorial policy and editorial oversight?
 * Are the editors writers with actual credentials? Do they have experience writing for other reliable publications? College degrees in relevant areas? Or does their expertise revolve around “being the biggest fan” or “loving the subject for a long time”?
 * In short, if the answers tend to point more towards them being a professional organization with actual credentials, you’re more likely to have people agree that it’s a reliable source. If they’re more accurately described as “super fans” or “amateur enthusiasts with a lot of passion”, then they’re more likely to be rejected as unusable. Sergecross73   msg me  13:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a bit problematic. The website does have an editor-in-chief and a senior editor. But it does state right off the bat that it's a blog, and none of the contributors are full-time members of staff – even editor-in-chief Andrew Rothmund only edits the blog in his spare time, as his main job is as a professional photographer. It also invites contributions from anybody who wants to write for them, and also invites artists to send links to their material for review. That would tend to put them in the category of "very professionally-run blog with experienced writers, but a blog nevertheless". In addition, it's now part of Brooklyn Vegan, and I'm not sure if we decided if BV was a reliable source or not... it would be a bit odd to have this as an RS but not its parent company. Richard3120 (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say no based on Richard's reasoning. If the editor-in-chief doesn't even focus his profession on writing or editing, I don't think this is a well-represented organization.  danny music editor  oops 14:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Richard, which was some of what I was going to point out too, but I was trying to not be the only bad guy pointing out how people’s sources arent acceptable. It looks far more like “enthusiast” than “professional” with these sorts of traits. I think it’s unreliable. Sergecross73   msg me  14:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy to be the bad guy. ;-) I find that metal in general has lots of websites like this, because of the lack of coverage of the genre – in the UK it looks as though Kerrang! has gone under, at least as a print magazine, because of the coronavirus, which leaves just the three publications under the Louder Sound banner (Metal Hammer, Classic Rock and Prog) as the only British magazine coverage of the harder end of rock music. We really need to do some tidying up of acceptable sources for rock and metal coverage – Lykaia (album) has fourteen reviews in the ratings table... and I don't think any of them are reliable. Richard3120 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t usually mind being the bad guy, but it can get tiring, between doing it here and the video game WikiProject, which is another content area with a lot of unusable blogging sources going on. But yes, again, I agree. Tons of unreliable sources are frequently used in the rock/metal area, and I think part of it is that both genre are far less popular than rap/pop/electronic in recent years. We’ve discussed a lot of the sources, it’s just that so much is written by passerby and casual editors that don’t know the standards. I do what I can in the modern rock area, but there’s no denying it’s a constant uphill battle. With Lykaia, we consider two of those sources usable. Metal Injection and Metal Storm. Honestly, outside of the four websites starting with “Metal” on the WP:RSMUSIC list, I tend to assume any other websites that start with “Metal” are generally unusable fansites. (It’s works like that in any content area - if you’re writing about Sonic the Hedgehog, just about every www.sonic_____.com website is an amateur fansite, because professional publications rarely have such a narrow scope.) Sergecross73   msg me  15:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Charts-related lists in "See also" sections
I've started a discussion at WT:Songs about this issue, which also applies to some album articles, I believe. Any interested editors, please weigh in at WT:SONG. JG66 (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The Reliability of CelebMix
I have noticed recently that a lot of articles (particularly GA ones) have been using CelebMix as a source. Has there been a consensus as to whether or not it is actually considered reliable for use on Wikipedia? I have read previous discussions talking about it (mainly this and this), and most users seem to be against using the website, but it has not stopped others from using it:. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As noted in the second discussion, CelebMix is largely written by unpaid volunteers, and it does say that "CelebMix has strict editorial standards and all content is reviewed and verified by a team of trained entertainment journalists before publication" . The problem is, I can't see anywhere who this team of trained journalists and editorial staff might be. Richard3120 (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I know the guy that founded CelebMix (I was once friends with him many moons ago) and I wouldn't really consider it a reliable source. Here's an early incarnation of the site before it was rebranded as CelebMix. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 15:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do belive says it all "CelebMix is maintained by young people, for young people. In essence, Celebmix is a sandbox for aspiring journalists. All information we post is (to the best of our knowledge) accurate and correct at time of publication, and we make efforts to ensure the information we publish is kept up-to-date." MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Shugo Chara! soundtracks
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Shugo Chara! soundtracks.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Multiple infobox chronologies
Quick question here. I’m all for the single or album chronologies in infoboxes. They help the reader navigate through an artists releases in order. Use them a lot. But it’s come to my attention that some artists use multiple ones. For example, it came up with Slipknot (band). If you check an album of theirs, let’s say, All Hope Is Gone. There’s both a “release chronology” and a “studio album chronology”. Is...that really necessary? Strikes me as overkill. Sergecross73  msg me  15:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This "studio album chronology" was added recently in a lot of articles. Madonna's releases for many years only have one chronology for each of singles, albums, and video releases, but now that studio chronology was added too. I personally don't really see the necessity of this extra chronology. After all, we have the artist template to see which albums are studio/live/compilation, etc. Bluesatellite (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see having one for singles and one for album type releases, because there’s no overlap. But having one that only includes studio albums, and one that contains compilations, live albums, and the studio albums concurrently running on the same infoboxes feels redundant. Sergecross73   msg me  16:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

You need extra chronology if there is a release in between two studio album releases. Take Taylor Swift as an example. If you look at Lover (album) (2019), there is a studio album chronology, and an extra chronology. This extra chronology is needed because of the release of her compilation album and one of her live albums. But if you look at 1989 (Taylor Swift album), we can clearly see one chronology because the chronology only included studio albums (Red [2012] and Reputation [2017]). Hope this clears things up as to why extra chronology is needed! Doggy54321 (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, no, all you did was describe what they are, which I already understood. I wasn’t saying they were exactly the same, I was saying that they’re too redundant and unnecessary to have going concurrently. Sergecross73   msg me  16:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, as discussed a year or so ago at WT:Songs, I think we should ditch chronologies altogether. Having them in the first place invites this sort of issue. Back then, I'd raised the point about how disruptive it becomes when several artists collaborate on a cover version of a song, as late in the song article we end up with an enormous infobox that can drop well down into subsequent sections, even references, because of all the individual artists' singles chronologies.
 * If Taylor happens to record a collaborative album following and/or preceding a compilation or live album, or if it applies to both/all artists, the effect would just snowball. And, as stated at that earlier discussion, these chronologies are represented in the foot-of-page artist navboxes anyway. None of the other details in the infobox are, which ensures we're not just repeating information. It's as if release chronologies are so important, they're allowed to exist totally free from the scrutiny we otherwise apply. Also, plenty of other Wikipedia projects avoid chronologies – eg, film articles don't have them, no matter how notable the directors' and lead actors' career trajectories might be. JG66 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I support JG66's suggestion of removing all chronologies. They're more trouble than they're worth. We could help readers by having one wikilink to the relevant discography in the infobox instead of lots of clutter to scroll through. EddieHugh (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ugh, this was precisely while I prefaced this with how I felt they generally worked well. I’m strongly against this. They definitely have a function, I just don’t think we should be doubling up on multiple ones in the same user box. Sergecross73   msg me  18:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * so are you saying that there should be one chronology, including everything, or just studio album chronology? Doggy54321 (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd side with Serge here on the original proposal, I don't see the need for both a studio albums chronology and an overall release chronology. You might need to keep the extra chronology for something like the Beatles albums, considering how much the early albums vary between the UK and US, not just in track listing, but also in titles. I think there will be a lot of complaints from casual readers and editors if the chronologies were dispensed with altogether, though. I'd rather get rid of those album track listing templates on song articles first... Richard3120 (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * agreed. I’m sure there will be weird scenarios like the Beatles or collaborative albums, but they’re comparatively few and far between, and can generally be figured out with some discussion and creative thinking.
 * Personally, I feel like linking between major studio albums is better - if you’re reading about the trajectory and events as they occur with an artist, I feel like reading between studio albums is more helpful than seeing that the artist released an inconsequential greatest hits rehash in between. But it seems like most commonly you see it where people include compilations/greatest hits/live albums etc, so I generally don’t fight it if people change it. Sergecross73   msg me  21:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I certainly find navigating between albums via the infobox chronology very easy. I think they should include all EPs/album types. Where that page doesn't exist it should link to the artist's discography. If people don't want that, then i'd support their removal all together. We could always say something like if a project is a collaboration between more than 3 artists, chronologies shouldn't be used in the infobox? ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 21:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And for the record, I’m totally fine with using all releases. I’d much prefer an “use one - an all releases one” consensus than a “remove all” consensus. Sergecross73   msg me  21:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with Serge, especially re: the Slipknot example. Not necessary. Caro7200 (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with EddieHugh's comment on how chronologies are "more trouble than they're worth", and support removing them altogether like that user and JG66 do as those are needless clutter. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that infoboxes are supposed to "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)". Immediate preceeding/succeeding albums don't tend to be key facts relevant to a specific album, and even when they are, we're better off discussing them within prose. However, if we use any chronology for albums, then I definitely prefer one general release chronology. Less clutter that way. Having both this and a studio album chronology is overkill as Sergecross73 writes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly think chronologies are helpful. I like being able to move from album to album without having to resort to a template. An editor recently added a studio album chronology to all of David Bowie's albums, which I think helps a lot in the case of albums like The Next Day and Blackstar. I think some chronologies that repeat info are overkill but ultimately I think they're helpful. But that's just my two cents. – zmbro (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agreed with Sergecross73 on this. It's unnecessary to add album chronologies in infoboxes. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with those who want to remove them all, but being realistic, support a limitation to prevent overuse. A single chrono for all of an artist's albums, including studio, live, compilation, reissues, etc., is sufficient. Extra chronos should only be used in exceptional cases by consensus. Adding up to four or five chronos for all the collaborators/guest appearances (seen more in song infoboxes) draws the reader's attention away from the topic and can overwhelm shorter articles. Navigation to other releases is better handled in the navboxes at the bottom, which are actually more useful, like mini discographies. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support a single-chronology limitation. If an article for the next release doesn't exist, skip it - it's most likely not essential, like some obscure EP (linking to an EP section of a discography page might be a bit jarring for the average reader). If the album-to-album trajectory or progression of an artist is relevant enough, it can be covered within the article's text with sources covering such a thing in detail. I know of the snobbishly-defined U.K.-leaning Beatles LP canon, and a similar case with the early Stones albums, that have led to UK-vs.-US chronological constructions, but those are niche concerns (WP:AUDIENCE), and perhaps it would benefit nonspecialist readers to a less segregated or skewed navigational experience. After all, there is also a business-side trajectory/narrative in the careers of professional recording artists and their labels. isento (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose the complete removal from the infobox. Troublesome? Yes. But if I had a dollar for every revert I have performed related to an infobox-related modification, I'd have a lot of them. The chronology is not as contentious as 1) the genre, 2) the release date, 3) the recording date, 4) the recording location, 5) the length, 6) the type, 7) the producers, and 8) the record label. I'd put the chronology as the ninth contentious parameter, yet I don't think any of them will be removed because of the persistent modifications they receive. No comment on the removal of the secondary chronology, but that parameter is used in articles like Cheek to Cheek (album), so a full deletion is incorrect. © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 01:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You bring up a good example: collaborative albums. In which case, I want to amend my support of a single-chronology limit to one with the exception of such cases. isento (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If we implemented "studio album chronology" to Cheek to Cheek, then it would have four chronologies (two for each artists). I support a single-chronology (studio+live+compilation etc) for each of the artist (in the case of collaborative albums). Bluesatellite (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Like isento and Bluesatellite, I would allow an exception for collaborative albums to only allow additional chronologies to factor in multiple artists, and general ones at that as opposed to those just focusing on studio albums (assuming we use any chronology listings at all). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus
To me, it looks like we’ve got a loose consensus for limiting it to one chronology - probably the all-types of album/EP/Compilation type. And it’s only okay to have two if it’s like a collaborative album. Sergecross73  msg me  14:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , This seems wise. I don't know who really uses "Alanis Morissette EPs" as a way to navigate anyway. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just so long as the point raised by Richard stands: "You might need to keep the extra chronology for something like the Beatles albums, considering how much the early albums vary between the UK and US ..." That issue goes way beyond the Beatles. It's true of chronologies for albums, and singles, for all bands in the so-called British Invasion, because it was only in the late 1960s that US record companies stopped "butchering" albums to make them shorter and filled with hits that the UK acts considered (only) single tracks. This situation gets even more complicated through business concerns – say, through Allen Klein's involvement with the Rolling Stones, whereby his interests ensure that a compilation or outtakes album turns up out the blue and completely contrary to (and sometimes to spite) his former clients' musical direction. And that's not even counting what Decca, the Stones' original record company, went about releasing after the band set up their own label with another company.
 * It's complicated, depending on the era, and one era's industry norms influence the next one's. It's boring to talk about or have to consider in any depth, I know, but if you do, the chronologies become (to quote EddieHugh again) "more trouble than they're worth". Within one era – the current one raised here – things can make perfect sense, but it doesn't work across the encyclopedia at all. As long as we're clear on that. JG66 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that as well. Sergecross73   msg me  20:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with one all-around chronology, limiting to just studio albums isn’t fair to the viewers, and having more than one is confusing. Doggy54321 (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Happy to support one "all-encompassing" chronology, EPs and all album types. Can we make it normal practise to pipe link to the discography where an article doesn't exist? This makes the chain of navigation easier. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 09:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pipe-linking to the discography page would leave the chain-follower stranded without the next destination, unless they scroll up or down from wherever the redirect landed them and figure it out themselves. isento (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in all cases a single chronology for each artist involved - I don't see the advantage in segregating British invasion albums by region of release, especially considering that the British invasion was an American phenomenon, yet as currently constructed, those Beatles and Rolling Stones chains are kind of marginalizing American releases, where sales of their albums appear to have been higher (judging quickly from sales certifications and the simple advantage of the country's population). Discography pages for those bands already denote what borders on a dogmatic specialist concern (WP:AUDIENCE). Infoboxes are meant to be more barebones and simple (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). I appreciate the argument about the artist's "development" and direction, but albums are as much product as they are works of art. If we're painting a narrative with these chains, it shouldn't be a skewed one privileging the artist over the businessmen or vice versa. Art and commerce go hand-in-hand in this story. isento (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable Source
I would like to add uDiscoverMusic.com to the unreliable sources page as they state on their About Us page, "uDiscoverMusic.com is operated by Universal Music Group, the largest record label in the world and home to the greatest artists in history." It strikes me as a bias source, also the same could be applied to Ones To Watch as they are owened by Live Nation.

Any thoughs? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, uDiscoverMusic.com looks like BuzzFeed but for music, it has quizzes, it’s very clearly biased, and it doesn’t look all that reliable. Also agree with Ones To Watch. Doggy54321 (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure they're of the same standard. On Ones to Watch, I can't find anything about the writers' credentials, or who the editorial team might be, or if there is one. But while I agree that uDiscover is biased towards Universal Music artists, I think it could be used for factual information such as birthplaces or tours, at least. And the writers there certainly have pedigree, with a lot of names I recognise from growing up in the UK. Max Bell was writing for NME in the late 70s during the punk and new wave era, before moving on to being the music critic for The Times and the Evening Standard in the 1980s. Paul Sexton was a staff writer at Record Mirror for most of the 1980s and is now a freelance journalist who has written for The Times, The Daily Telegraph, Billboard, Music Week, The Guardian and others. Martin Chilton was the music critic for The Daily Telegraph before becoming the newspaper's Culture Editor. Richard3120 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I asked about uDiscover here sometime last year (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 59) – I was surprised to get no takers. I agree it's a cut above, way above, the others in terms of journalistic expertise. Further to Richard's point, I recognise loads of them from old issues of NME, Sounds, Record Collector, Select, Classic Rock, etc. The site can't be faulted at all, on that point at least. JG66 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I never put the journalists "professionalism" at stake here. The main issue, and only to be fair, is who operates those sites, and of course it will be bias towards the artists under their roster. There is a clear conflict of interests. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But what about the in-depth features, for example? These don't promote any artist at all, and are written by journalists with 30 or 40 years of experience. Richard3120 (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Given the authors' individual credentials, I would use them. But given the publication's affiliations, I would follow WP:NIS and clearly identify the publication in text. (Martin Chilton, writing for Universal Records' music publication uDiscoverMusic, ...) Something like that. isento (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, at least it should work in most situations. And in fact where a uDiscover piece is being used to support release and promotional details for an album from decades back – simply saying that these things happened, not their significance – I'd say we could live without stating the publication's affiliations. I don't know if others agree with that. My thinking is that the site's inherent bias will be problematic in certain areas; or needs to be highlighted in others; or is irrelevant/innocuous in others still. JG66 (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not dissimilarly to what JG66 was saying I think it should be used to source information it gives for the recording, promotion etc. around very old albums. I found this article really quite helpful in building an article as it had information about the main pivot of its subject's commercial success (an Old Grey Whistle Test performance) which I couldn't find anywhere else to cite. As for its critical commentaries, I feel they should also be used albeit with denotation per what Isento was saying.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

uDiscoverMusic.com is not suitable as it creates an edit conflict as its owned by record labels. I'd say, very limited use unless its commenting on something sourced elsewhere e.g. neilsen soundscan sales. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 11:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what you’re saying sounds more or less like WP:PRIMARY, which makes sense considering the source’s ties. Sergecross73   msg me  12:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * An exception could be made for those "in depth feature" articles, henceforth I do believe Lil-unique1 says it best here. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus
Letting every user that participated on this discussion to vote, so we can reach a consesus, , , , , and. Nevertheless, who hasn't participated is always welcome of course.
 * Unreliable for uDiscoverMusic.com and Ones To Watch as they are owned by record labels and live music promoters and therefore are quite bias on their "own" artists and news reported. On the former website, some journalists have contributed to other websites, which are reliable, nontheless their unbias opinion is not inherited from other websites to this one. However, a side noted could be added for "in depth feature" articles on the former website. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Doggy54321 (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What is that supposed to mean? There is no “nomination”, and the person who started this discussion is opposed to its use. Sergecross73   msg me  01:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He does support that is unreliable? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Use sparingly in accordance of the spirit of WP:PRIMARY. Don’t add it to the WP:RSMUSIC list, which will suggest more of an endorsement that we are giving here. Sergecross73   msg me  01:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not add it? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it’s less of a “use it with conditions” and more of a “don’t use it unless you have to”. Sergecross73   msg me  21:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Use sparingly: I recon their articles are useful for sourcing basic information and also for stories around albums/artists and such in their features (like my above John Martyn example), even if its Universal artists in question. Generally I support its other, more opinionated articles (i.e. reviews) on the grounds denotation as to the website's affiliation should made, but due to this, other sources should be given priority.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Use sparingly – context matters. If we just brand the site unreliable, then we should do so for all reissue and box-set liner notes and for record company/artist press releases. The liner notes comparison is especially relevant, because no end of music journalists and historians (eg, David Fricke, Chris Welch, Peter Doggett, Richie Unterberger, Harvey Kubernik) write them and are therefore temporarily on a record company's payroll. Using uDiscover pieces for release dates, recording details, promotion, tours, perhaps chart performance, is fine, imo, just as sourcing this information to a reissue's liner note essay would be. For any discussion of an album's significance, then we should attribute the statements and clarify the nature of the source. For anything beyond that, we shouldn't use it as a source at all.
 * Previous discussions here – the one about Idolator being RS or non-RS comes to mind – got me looking at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Unsurprisingly, the list on that page is far more nuanced than a basic yes/no; there's the likes of AllMusic (listed under RhythmOne) and Rolling Stone carrying caveats regarding their usage. It's the same for all sources – they're appropriate and "reliable" in some contexts, but definitely not in others. (I'm increasingly seeing this context-based reliability as an issue in our music genre articles as well: The rock subgenres have all received no end of dedicated coverage, so our articles should be based on those non-partisan sources for the most part, rather than on any review or other coverage dedicated to a specific album/artist. The latter type of sources can make grand claims about an album's significance in a subgenre or music scene, but that's for the album article; authoritative sources on the subgenre may not recognise the album in the same light.) I think this sort of discernment in deciding where the conflict of interest and inherent bias is a genuine problem, and where it's not, should be applied to uDiscover and similar sources. JG66 (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Use sparingly - Useable, not preferable, as explained above. isento (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

So...
Is BrooklynVegan a reliable source? I've used it just a couple of times, but have read in AfDs, for example, that some editors consider it to be reliable. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve usually stayed away, because I thought we considered it non-reliable, but it’s not on the list, so maybe it’s a good time for a closer look. Sergecross73   msg me  15:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I 100% think so, especially for their competence in indie rock. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I look at it like the Rhino Records site, or maybe All Tomorrow's Parties...pretty good...or at the least full of obsessive nerds. Caro7200 (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify or elaborate? It’s not that I doubt, I’d just like to know. Sergecross73   msg me  13:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Serge, writing just for me, obviously, I think these types of sites are good for confirming release years, for example, where other RS have already "disagreed." Caro7200 (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

What to do when a source doesn't list magazine page numbers
So I recently got access to Rock's Backpages and it seems like a great source for older magazine articles. There's one catch. In an ironic twist, Rock's Backpages doesn't actually list page numbers. It lists the publication, the date, and author, but no page numbers. So what do I do? Famous Hobo (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I say include what you can include. In practice, magazines are 1.) generally fairly short compared to (e.g.) books or databases and 2.) logically laid out so that finding the relevant passage is usually pretty easy. If you're mentioning an interview, I can probably find the subject in the table of contents. If you're referencing a review, there is almost always a reviews section to narrow down my search to just a few pages of the publication. Much better to have a somewhat incomplete citation than either not citing or never including the info in the first place. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree... if you have the issue number/date, it's not going to be that difficult for anyone who comes across the print source to look through one issue of the magazine and find the article and add the page number(s) in due course. Whenever I'm in the UK I usually go into the British Library to do some research and they have many music magazines in there in their print version, so if you tell me anything you're particularly trying to find the page number for, I can check next time I'm in there (probably next year now, with all the travel disruption). Richard3120 (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm an RBP subscriber and have used the archived articles as sources for years. It's fine to just use whatever details are there (I've never had a problem in all that time). Often I come across the same review or article cited in a biography or reference book on music, with page number(s) included in the book's citation, so obviously, that can be carried over to our source. I don't know if that's relevant for you – it probably depends on the era you focus on here. JG66 (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agree. There is an emergency access system the University of Michigan has put in place during the pandemic--scans of hundreds of thousands of items are available to subscribing universities.  I've noticed some ancient issues of magazines where every page number has been accidentally clipped, due to being so close to the edge...they're also bundled in volumes, so there's no way I'm going to finger count through hundreds of pages... Caro7200 (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks guys! It'll be slightly annoying not having page numbers, but the information still exists, so I should use it. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * as I said above, if you let me know the article you're editing and the magazine and date, I'll have a look for the page number in the print edition next time I'm at the British Library, and add it to the relevant article. Richard3120 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

QRO Magazine
I am wondering if this website is considered reliable or not. This is their staff list, the date says 2007 but it is different from earlier versions of the page. Most of the site's content as of right now (at least the album/track reviews) is written by associate editor Ted Chase, though this wasn't the case originally. Occasionally, there are other people who write instead. It also looks like it was cited once by Goldmine. Any thoughts? ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Headline Planet
I have been under the impression since 2017 that Headline Planet is an unreliable source and should not be used in music articles. I thusly tagged 2 uses of it in the article for Taylor Swift's Folklore album but my tags were removed earlier today and I was told that because their reporting on Apple Music and Spotify info is accurate it stands as a valid reference. But to me this directly contradicts what I was orig told when I first started editing/my seeing other editors remove it as a ref from various articles over the years as per edit histories and talk pages. But a quick wikipedia search just now showed me tons of 2020 music articles repeatedly citing it. I would appreciate some clarification on the matter. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the source is a reliable one, since it seems to consistently report the correct information about music. --K. Peake 16:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We assess sources mainly against Reliable sources. HP claims to have an "editorial team", but almost all of the articles that I looked at were written by the same person (the "Founder, President"... although the series of bikini photo pieces is mostly credited to another name). This makes it at least close to WP:RSSELF. At the same link, HP invites sponsorship, but I don't know if it notifies readers of what content has been paid for. This makes it at least close to WP:SPONSORED. HP also states that it began as "a hobby website", . A lot of the music content looks almost auto-generated – like someone auto-generated text based on chart data and then added a few phrases. Overall, HP looks WP:QUESTIONABLE. EddieHugh (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note also that not only does founder Brian Cantor write almost all the content, Headline Planet is also published by the "Cantortainment Company", making it sound even more WP:RSSELF. Richard3120 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I treat Headline Planet in music articles the same way I treat messageboards like Neogaf or Resetera in the video game content area - its a good place to find “leads” or “ideas” on things to be added, but it doesn’t meet our RS standards, so I don’t cite it, and don’t add it unless I see it be replicated by reliable sources. Sergecross73   msg me  20:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not consider this a reliable source. Every music-related article I have read on there is written by one person, Brian Cantor, and they report on a lot of irrelevant stuff like iTunes Charts and lower rung radio chart positions. If anything from this website is worthy of inclusion, it will have been covered by a more reliable source.—NØ</b> 20:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you everyone for all the replies. I'm going to remove the citations, apply the template again and link back to this discussion for editors who will question it. Perhaps it's time HP was added to the list of unreliable sources to make it clear for all editors going forward? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Seems to be a consensus, and I imagine this may keep coming up otherwise. I support adding it to the unreliable side. Sergecross73   msg me  03:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Any update on if HP is being added to the unreliable sources section? The consensus appears to be that it's unreliable so there doesn't seem to be need for an RFC but I don't want to prematurely take it upon myself to include it in the table so asking first. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Carlobunnie, this has been here for a month and there's been no update for weeks, so go ahead and add it. EddieHugh (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * done. Hopefully my wording is okay. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me; thanks. EddieHugh (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging in this discussion, since his edits was in the diffs. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up,, I wasn't aware of this discussion. I've always verified content sourced from HeadlinePlanet back to its original source, i.e the actual Spotify/Apple Music chart, and the content has always proven to be factual. Thus, my reasoning for restoring the ref. I usually, but very rarely, cite it as placeholder content, with regards to streaming data, until charts such as the Billboard Hot 100 update. But as correct as their articles may be, I understand how that's not a credible way of going about sourcing, as HP's content is highly self-published and anyone can practically create the content that they do. With that said, I'm not opposed to adding it to unreliable sources. AshMusique (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The Apple (1980 film)
Would some members from WP:ALBUM mind taking a look at the soundtrack for The Apple (1980 film) and assessing it per WP:NALBUM? If the soundtrack is notable on its own, then it probably should be split off into its own stand-alone article. I came across this while checking on some non-free movie soundtrack album covers per WP:FILMSCORE, and this particular seciton seems to be more developed and better sourced than most other similar sections about soundtracks in film articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think the album is notable – I've never heard of the film, and to be honest, the section about the soundtrack is almost entirely dependent on one source, a blog podcast, which wouldn't pass WP:RS. Richard3120 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The Music Network
Following comments here and at Talk:Sour Candy (Lady Gaga and Blackpink song), I propose formally adding this publication to WikiProject Albums/Sources. Any objections? At the very least, it's subpar for release dates, and certainly not as authoritative as ARIA or even Noise11 for Australia-related music matters. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 14:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I've seen justification for the this site to be considered not a reliable source. If it generally meets the criteria of a reliable source (which I'm not sure about), I think we'd need more reason to discount it. Discrepancies in release dates could be down the the record label putting back a release, etc. --Michig (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I’m probably in the same boat. I’m. Not defending it - I honestly don’t think I’ve ever heard of it - but a few release date discrepancies probably isn’t really enough to make a call either way. Sergecross73   msg me  20:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Alone, it does not support the notion that a song has been released as a single. It can be indicative but its "released songs to radio" are ranked which suggests that it is not driven by labels. Also songs like "Slow Grenade" by Ellie Goulding appear in the released songs section multiple times. Highly unlikely and improbable. I'm also not familiar with the Australian radio system but think its similar to the UK where songs aren't serviced by labels as such - they're picked up by radio stations. Its a very loose relationship. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 22:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to meet RS. Their about page lists the two current staff members, and they have credentials for what they do. I don't see any method listed for how the charts are calculated, so perhaps they alone are unreliable while prose are reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with that assessment. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 08:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I decided to dig a bit deeper and chart-wise it is indeed unreliable as it is a single-network chart, it compiles data from several radio stations, but the publication to go is ARIA in australia that takes into consideration sales and streaming, not radio airplay. However, the top 50 from ARIA is indeed publihsed on Music Network (industry magazine). All in all, use it for its prose, but not for its airplay charts. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Do reviews alone warrant notability?
Hello, fellow project members! Sorry if this has been asked before, but I couldn't find anything in the archives. Sometimes, when I search for sources that I can use on an album article, I receive mostly reviews as results. Do these reviews alone (if coming from reputable and relevant sources, obviously) make the article ok per WP:NALBUM? Or is it imperative that I present references announcing the album, discussing its production, interviewing the musicians involved, etc? I mean, of course some of this information may be found on reviews too, but I'm just unsure if reviews alone count as "covered by multiple sources". Happy editing, Victor Lopes  Fala! • C 01:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think multiple reviews is enough - most "greatest hits" albums won't be able to have anything except reviews as prose, because the songs' composition, recording, etc. will have been covered on the albums the song's were originally released on. Richard3120 (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Multiple reviews is enough. While not exactly what you've asked about, tagging a stub or short article for notability, for example, simply because the majority of the references are from reliable source reviews, is an example of disruptive editing, in my opinion. Caro7200 (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If the reviews provide significant coverage, then yes, that’s enough. That said, if you’ve got 3 RS reviews, but can only scrounge up a couple sentences of prose from it, then you could still be in danger of people pushing for a merge. Even notable articles can be merged if there’s little to be said about the subject. Sergecross73   msg me  15:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Is synthmuseum.com a reliable source?
http://synthmuseum.com/

It's used on articles for synth gear, but it doesn't have the smell of a great source to me. Assessing what counts as a reliable source isn't one of my great strengths though. Popcornfud (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No comment on the source. I just wanted to show the extent of its use. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't know we had that tool, very interesting.
 * Articles on musical equipment do not, on the whole, have good sourcing. Popcornfud (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot of that site is material taken (with credit) from other places. See the pages for Moog or PPG, for example. They do at least identify themselves, but as three "keyboard enthusiasts ourselves". The two remaining "curators" work(ed) for a company whose linked website has been transferred to other owners. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles on musical equipment do not, on the whole, have good sourcing. Popcornfud (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot of that site is material taken (with credit) from other places. See the pages for Moog or PPG, for example. They do at least identify themselves, but as three "keyboard enthusiasts ourselves". The two remaining "curators" work(ed) for a company whose linked website has been transferred to other owners. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Rolling Stone 500 Greatest Albums
Rolling Stone have today published a new updated version of their 500 Greatest Albums list... just a heads up that the list on this page will have to be revised and updated to take account of this. Warning for those of a nervous disposition: the new list includes former One Direction members. Richard3120 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can work on that if no one else is already doing so. If anybody would like to join in and help, I'll be working on it here, going from the bottom up to the top. The new list is, unpredictable at times, to say the least. It's a mixed bag between oldschool favorites (Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones, Clash, etc.) and completely out of nowhere modern day picks (Shakira, Harry Styles, John Mayer, Daddy Yankee, all of which are within the first 50 albums on the list). I like that Rolling Stone tried to update the list with a more modern approach, but I question the staying power of some of the new albums.


 * Side note, the articles for a lot of the former albums on the list will probably have a sentence in the lede saying how it is featured on Rolling Stone's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time. I'm sure IP editors will come in and fix up those sentences within the next few days, but just be aware that these sentences will need to be updated. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a bizarre list for sure... it's not even as though some of the new entries are recent albums – Kate Bush's Hounds of Love has suddenly appeared very high up at number 68, despite being released in 1985 and not appearing in either the 2003 or 2012 lists... did it take Rolling Stone 35 years to realise what a great album it is? Richard3120 (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Did any of the many, many Stranglers or Gary Numan albums for which we have stubs make the list? Caro7200 (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * they didn't, but that's not a great surprise... few of them would make such a list by British writers, although the Stranglers' debut Rattus Norvegicus is in both 1001 Albums to Hear Before You Die and in the top 200 of the NME top 500 albums, so that's probably one I should probably put on my list for improving. But in general this new 2020 list is far more eclectic than previous versions, and for the first time it appears to have been compiled by someone other than ancient music journalists. Richard3120 (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just joking...I've gone through Category:Music articles with topics of unclear notability three times since Boleyn posted here, and I think at one point the Stranglers and Gary Numan were "winning." Caro7200 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (facepalm) sorry, I was a bit slow on the uptake there. That is really surprising – both artists might not be as well known to American editors as British ones, but I would think it highly likely that all the albums by both artists will pass WP:NALBUM, if only old magazines can be located. Richard3120 (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's still OK to say albums featured on previous versions of the list, presumably? Popcornfud (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say yeah, as long as the lede notes it was the 2012 edition and not the 2020 edition. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, that took forever, but the updated list is done. You can find it here. With the updated list, we added nine new good articles and featured articles, so yay! Famous Hobo (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * good work. Seeing as the 2020 list adds quite a lot of recent albums, I think it will be possible to add a fair few more GAs now, as the information will be available online, as opposed to the 60s and 70s albums that dominated the 2012 list. Do we still have a copy of the 2012 list archived somewhere? I suspect there may be editors who might want to concentrate on albums that were on this list rather than the new one. Richard3120 (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point, I included an archived version of the 2012 list on the 2020 page. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears as though Rolling Stone is now subscriber only
Just a heads up, a lot of Rolling Stone articles seem to only be accessible now if you're a subscriber. For example, this review used to be freely accessible, but now in order to read it you must be a subscriber. Which sucks... Famous Hobo (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Billboard has done similar with a lot of its content as well for some time now BUT once there are archives you can still access the full versions, and some archive sites can still save the full version of current works (articles/charts) even if they're subscription locked when you access the urls. So technically it's not really an issue. Depending on what the url links to editors may just have to make more use of the 'url-access' parameter and archived links. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, I can read it... Richard3120 (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You can? I'm getting this. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can read it just fine as well, but like I said there are archives of it on wayback if you need to read it or if it's been used on a wiki page for the album or something. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strange, not sure what's going on. But you're right, there are archived versions of the Rolling Stone articles I want, it'll just be a little more cumbersome to use them. Oh well. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * there are archives of course, but if Rolling Stone does go to a subscriber-only version in future, that won't help for future album reviews. archives or not, not every review has been put up on the website. It doesn't have the original 1977 review of David Bowie's Low, for example, or the reviews of the three Big Star albums, or the first two albums by punk band X, or 1980s UK synthpop classics Dare, The Lexicon of Love and Non-Stop Erotic Cabaret. I've located all of these in back issues of the print versions of Rolling Stone, and really should get round to putting them into the articles. Richard3120 (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In the context of the conversation, obviously we mean anything published on the website that could have been archived at some point. This clearly wouldn't apply to things that were printed in the physical editions only. And as regards future articles/reviews, like I mentioned above, some archive sites can still archive full unblocked copies of things even if they show up as subscription/registration locked on the source website. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Advice needed - names in prose of albums
Alright, so I’m looking for advice on something. I mostly work on rock band stuff where these sort of issues don’t occur. But I recently started working on content related to Machine Gun Kelly because he put out a rock album last week.

Now, let’s say I’m writing about Tool (band) like I normally do. If I were writing prose, I’d write something like "Maynard James Keenan fronts Tool. Keenan also fronts A Perfect Circle. Also, Keenan makes wine." Full name on first mention, last name only on subsequent mentions.

So my question is, do we handle it the same way when an artist goes by a more abstract name like “Machine Gun Kelly”? I wasn’t sure if the “full name first, last name subsequent mentions" applied to a more abstract name. I mean, I’m pretty sure his name isn’t meant to be taken as First Name: Machine Middle Name: Gun Last Name: Kelly. It’s not like anyone calls him “Machine” informally or "Mr Kelly" formally. Or maybe that doesn’t matter? But writing out the full name is tedious. His legal name is Colson Baker, so "Baker" could be used. But I don’t think he’s really known by that either.

For what it’s worth, most of his stuff on Wikipedia isn’t very well done, so I wouldn’t put much stock in what’s been done in the past. The closest comparison I could think of - Kid Rock - is also in pretty awful shape, so that’s not really helpful either.

Thoughts? Input? Sergecross73  msg me  14:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I (of course) can't point to a specific article right now, but remember RS articles on and reviews of The Dirt referring to him in places as simply Kelly after the first full mention. Caro7200 (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've just been looking for articles and interviews with him to see how other reliable sources call him – occasionally it's "MGK" and The New York Times even refers to him as "Mr. Baker" throughout their article, but "Kelly" seems to be the most common. The other option is exactly what's been done in Tickets to My Downfall – establish that Baker is his real name in the first section of prose, and then continue using it thereafter, but I can see you've had disagreements about this with other editors, hence presumably why you're asking here. Richard3120 (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was the one who wrote the Tickets to My Downfall article and set it up like that, where I established his birth name and used Baker throughout. Only one editor has challenged it since the articles creation, and it was just a single revert, so it’s not really much of a dispute per se (especially considering the article’s high traffic). But yes, it made me wonder if I was on the right side of the argument or not. Sergecross73   msg me  15:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:SURNAME, "People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym, in which case the whole pseudonym is used." Articles that mention him should settle between using the full "Machine Gun Kelly" or simply "Kelly". <b style="color:#4169E1;">Ə</b> XPLICIT 04:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Y.saoju.net
Hi, I wondered if this Chinese website was reliable or not for record sales (see the list of best-selling albums in China, for example). As far as I can say, y.saoju.net is dedicated to new digital albums and concert informations. Also, I've been unable to find any information about record sales or equivalent track streams on the website, so I'm guessing it is unreliable and that it should be listed under Record charts. Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Apoxyomenus has asked a related question at Wikipedia talk:Record charts. Richard3120 (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Richard3120, I didn't know there was already a discussion about this website somewhere else. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Song appearances
Wondering if other editors remove info from album articles about song appearances. They always strike me more as trivia, even if they're sourced--and they usually aren't. You know: this song was in video game X, this no-name band covered it on this release, this song can be heard in the strip club scene of movie Z.  Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I often do, and I think they should be. As you say, they are rarely sourced, and if the song's appearance really were notable, someone would have discussed it at length somewhere. Being in the background of a film or TV episode isn't really that notable... almost every artist, even obscure ones, have probably had one of their songs appear for 15 seconds in the background of some scene in a TV drama, because there are production departments dedicated to searching out appropriate background music for this purpose. Richard3120 (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It could be beneficial for songs that were featured in Rhythm games such as Guitar Hero and Dance Dance Revolution.<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 20:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally remove any dedicated “appearances” lists, as they generally are prone to example bloat, with increasingly trivial examples. But I do, however, add prose about song appearances in the prose of sections like “Background” type sections. It helps keep the cruft down, as passerby editors are far more likely to pile on to lists than they are to try to write and work a coherent sentence that flows into other content in the paragraph. And as you say, that way, it does allow for some notable examples. As much as I don’t care about professional wrestling, I tend to make mention of when songs are a person or event's theme song, for example, because I feel it’s presence on something nationally tellivised is noteworthy. Sergecross73   msg me  21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * how do you mean "beneficial"? Beneficial for who? I don't really understand this comment. Richard3120 (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the odd phrasing. I'm basically saying that some song appearances can be encyclopedic within video games. Games such as Guitar Hero that allows players to "play" iconic rock songs, it might not be so trivial and worthy of being mentioned.<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 21:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, thanks for clarifying. I agree it's a possibility – again, I think it comes down to whether there are reliable independent sources mentioning it. I can think for example of Orbital's "P.E.T.R.O.L.", which was originally written for one of the Wipeout games before appearing on the group's In Sides album... that's been mentioned in various independent sources, so its appearance would be notable. Richard3120 (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think context matters a lot. I don’t think it’s worth noting that (Pro Baseball Team) plays Queen’s "We Are the Champions” at games - there’s probably hundreds of sports teams that do that sort of thing. And there’s so many other things to be covered with that song. But if Bad Wolves newest single was used in a similar capacity, I may make mention of it in their case, when I can barely scrounge up 3 paragraphs for an article. Also, to clarify my original comment, I only put info like this in the background sections of song articles. For album articles, I’d blend it into “promotion/release” sections. And again, only very sparingly, and when we’ve got reliable sources for it. Sergecross73   msg me  22:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Treatment of trivia is addressed in WP:SONGTRIVIA. Basically, trivial appearances and uses need reliable source(s) showing that they have received some critical attention and therefore are noteworthy. They should be included with some context which shows their significance; "It was in so & so video game" is not sufficient. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Difference between an album and an EP?
What defines an EP as opposed to an album on Wikipedia? If we use the definition of an EP as a recording with more than three tracks and/or that is longer than 10 minutes but shorter than 30, then why is Alien Love Secrets by Steve Vai considered an EP and not an album? Why is Wish You Were Here an album instead of an EP? JJPMaster (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess we would go by whether reliable sources describe it as an EP or an album. But also chart compilers in various countries used to have strict definitions of what constituted a "single", "EP" or "album" (I don't know if these definitions are still in force). Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sometimes they seem incongruous (short albums with few tracks or long EPs with many tracks), but what the majority of reliable sources indicate should be used. I don't think there is a widely accepted definition for all eras and regions and WP should not be trying to create one. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We generally just go by what reliables sources and the artists themselves say. That resolves 99% of issues in my experience. I think there used to be some hard industry standards, but I don’t think they’re really adhered to (or even generally known) anymore. Sergecross73   msg me  17:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just going to say the same: RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Should terms like "arrangement" and "single" be linked in the article text?
This question is in the same vein of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_61, which like this was also posted in response to 's repeated delinking changes at Love for Sale (Bilal album), citing MOS:LINK. Prior to that first thread I posted here, I had been told by Tony1 to "go away" from his talk page. So I'd rather raise the question here again.

I understand the guideline cautioning against linking everyday words, commonly understood terms, etc. (WP:OVERLINK). But, while I'm not as sure about "single" (unless, like said before, there's contextual significance discussed in the article in which it's linked), "arrangement" really seems like a technical term the average person won't get -- I think many editors here even may not know what it exactly means off the top of their head. The article for arrangement even needed the lead's defining first sentence to be verified directly with a citation. isento (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with "arrangement", I just read the article and it had a totally different meaning than I had thought. I also agree with JG66's comment on the word "single" needing contextual significance in the article. If it has enough significance, I don't think it’s WP:OVERLINK. Single (pertaining to music) isn't an everyday word that people who have no interest in music use, just like how quarterback means nothing to people who don't know much about football. Doggy54321 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * <EditConflict>Well, to see in that most recent example "rock" yet again delinked in the infobox and within discussion of the album's musical styles is just stupid and disruptive, imo, given the discussion that took place here last month.
 * I can't decide either way for the likes of arrangement and single – I've seen them linked in album articles and don't feel the need to remove the links, but in something I'm writing or expanding, I don't feel the need to add the links either. Arrangement's like mixing perhaps: such a common term but that's not to say a link might not be welcome in some cases. I wouldn't normally link it in main text; an exception might be in Let It Bleed, say, where there's discussion of a rock band recording mostly blues and country roots-inspired music yet suddenly there's a track with a choral arrangement and French horn. Ye gods, someone's actively arranged a Stones recording ...!! I appreciate it wasn't unheard of back then at all, but in that particular context, the term seems significant. (Sort of in line with my approach with singer-songwriter, I think/hope.) JG66 (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think good judgment is required, but would not link either term mostly because readers do not click on links and we only want to link the most important content. So if you're talking about a cover version of "My Favorite Things" by John Coltrane, which he arranged and improvises on, I would not link the term because we have a clear idea what arrangement means in this context. However, if a subject's primary activity is arranging music, I would link the term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In this day and age, and with the plethora of articles about the modern "phenomenon" that is rock music, who doesn't know what it means and needs a link to it, except for an article about music, popular music or list of music styles? In the past, I would have hesitated to unlink the term "rap", but I now consider that it's become mainstream to the point where a link is usually superfluous. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 09:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Rock has been on the decline in the past decade. Perhaps younger readers would benefit. isento (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Changes to the style guide
I made a few changes to WP:ALBUMSTYLE, so I figured I would make a post here to get feedback and provide visibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Albums%2FAlbum_article_style_advice&type=revision&diff=985486249&oldid=983936835 ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

thrashocore.com
thrashocore.com describes itself as a "brutal metal webzine". I have seen it used before as RS for album reviews, however, zines are, by definition, WP:SPS. Would anyone object to it being listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID? -- The SandDoctor Talk 23:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable  - While they’ve got an editorial staff, any I spot-checked did not have any professional credentials, just “I really love metal” type stuff. It’s more of an enthusiast/fan site. So it doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s RS requirements. Sergecross73   msg me  23:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

metal-experience.com
metal-experience.com describes itself as an "up and coming webzine". I have seen it used before as RS for album reviews, however, Zines are, by definition, WP:SPS. Would anyone object to it being listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID? -- The SandDoctor Talk 22:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - While I don’t like to resort to more superficial things, this website looks like an early 2000s Geocities page. No professional publication would create a website that looks like this. Sergecross73   msg me  23:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Apart from looking very unprofessional, is this site even being updated any more? I went to the home page and they're still showing banner ads for a metal festival that took place in 2014. Their most recent reviews are from 2018. Doesn't seem very "up and coming" to me. Richard3120 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

PopMatters moving to Word Press
PopMatters seems to be undergoing some major changes and I think they've drastically cut their staff (at least, compared to what I remember from a few years back). All the site's articles currently carry the statement: "PopMatters is moving to WordPress. We will publish a few essays daily while we develop the new site. We hope the beta will be up sometime late next week." The move to WordPress will surely affect how editors view PM in terms of reliability – ie, if it's a blog, it most likely no longer meets our requirements.

Just a heads-up. Obviously this needs to be addressed on the list of reliable sources, but also, editors might like to ensure we've got archived versions of the site's content in our articles. A concern I have is that when PopMatters moves over, it might not be possible to ascertain the pre-blog-era articles at the new location if the original publication dates are omitted, and we might have major problems in years to come when editors view PM as "just a blog". But at least if the current versions of PM articles and reviews are archived at Wayback, and that "PopMatters is moving to WordPress ..." statement appears, our references catch the site pre-blog and should satisfy any non-RS issues in years to come. (That is, unless the PM articles are already archived at Wayback, of course, going back years perhaps – in which case, all's good.) JG66 (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WordPress is a content management system. Just because a site uses Wordpress, that doesn't make it a blog. --Michig (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well OK, but I think the presence of "Powered by WordPress" at the foot of each page is likely to put PopMatters under a lot of scrutiny as a reliable source. I've seen editors here, certainly reviewers, shoot down any WordPress-hosted source on sight. Most of the time they're quite right to, imo. But PopMatters is well established – in its current guise, at least – and my point is that it might be an idea to take steps to ensure all the pre-WordPress content we use is adequately protected from such scrutiny. Even more so if, as I believe is the case, the editorial staff has been slimmed down considerably. JG66 (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I definitely understand your concern - I generally use Wordpress as an “auto-fail” sign for source reliability, and often convey that to newbie editors too. I don’t think there’s is a single Wordpress RS in any of the content areas I work in. Not exactly how to handle this yet, but it’s true that we’ll likely need some explanation here either way - either “Popmatters is the exception to the Wordpress rule” or “Popmatters isn’t reliable 2021 onward”. Sergecross73   msg me  13:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure – "WordPress" puts any source right in the crosshairs, as far as I know. It's should be easy enough to clarify things on our list of sources; I just think we need to catch/archive existing PM sources while they carry the "soon-to-be-WordPress" disclaimer. It surprises me that a few PM refs from a good few years ago haven't actually been archived at Wayback yet. JG66 (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I should point out here that musicOMH, which is also used as a review site on many articles, has been hosted on WordPress for a while now... any discussion affecting PopMatters will also affect this website. Richard3120 (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll second that 1.) some users will find this to be a problem and 2.) it's not actually a problem. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As a general note, WordPress VIP is used by Global News (see footer), CNN, Variety, TED, and TIME (magazine). I agree that it generally sets off alarm bells for me too, but PopMatters isn't the only exception. -- The SandDoctor Talk 03:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, point taken. And in fact, Richard's mention of musicOMH, and the look of that site, made me realise that being carried by WordPress does not automatically render the publication a WordPress blog after all. JG66 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It’s probably best to handle it the same way we handle blogs - if it’s by a random guy and his friends who with no real credentials beyond "having a real passion for (subject)", it’s probably not an RS, but if it’s a professional publication who who just happens to use the format, it can be fair game for being an RS. Sergecross73   msg me  14:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

MCMXC a.D.
Hey guys, I am currently working on MCMXC a.D., an album by Enigma. I am trying to get it to Good Article status. I know that the sections below songs are full of little content, especially critical reception. I also know that the songs section is full of original research. It is still a lot of effort so I am curious if they are people willing to help. If you think you can help with the article in any way, feel free to do so. Lazman321 (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I’ll help with the article. I’m just about to head to bed but I’ll put the article on my watchlist and help to fix the article tomorrow! Thanks! Doggy54321 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't do anything about it for the moment, but there will certainly be reviews from many UK newspapers and music magazines from 1990 – with "Sadness Part 1" reaching no. 1 there was a lot of interest generated in this group at the time. But I won't be able to get to the British Library to check out back copies of the magazines until next year, as the current situation means I can't travel to the UK at present. Richard3120 (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You may find this a bit hard-going (or at least I did!) but |this piece on the album by Mark Sinker could be useful--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have put this article up for peer review if anyone is willing to review. Lazman321 (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

OndaRock and Spectrum Culture
Seen these most recently in some Jesus Lizard album articles (and Jesus Jones...although not Jesus and Mary Chain [we are all so very old]). I've removed Spectrum Culture in the past, and OndaRock is linked to an Italian journalist, I think. They don't appear reliable... Caro7200 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur that both zines should not be used as reliable sourcing due to being WP:SPS by definition. -- The SandDoctor Talk 23:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I never know about these types of websites... they were both set up by journalists and have an editorial team, but employ non- professional part-timers as their writers. But this is probably the way music journalism works now - it employs very few professional and full-time writers, and even the likes of NME now work in pretty much the same way as these websites these days. Richard3120 (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I’ve never heard of either. Can you link to them to confirm I’m looking at the right places? Sergecross73   msg me  01:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Serge, it's and . Richard3120 (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sergecross73   msg me  02:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Ondarock Thoughts on it: The website’s Director, Claudio Fabretti, has an education and long background in Journalism. Editor Giuliano Dellipaoli has written for music publications in the past, including a paper/print magazine, which we generally consider reliable. Fabio G has a similar background. I wouldn’t be so quick to write this one off. Kind of like “blogs”, “zines” aren’t really a good sign, but they’re not a auto-fail either. There could be potential here. Sergecross73  msg me  02:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly how I see it, and Spectrum Culture seems to be structured similarly - the founding editor used to write for Tiny Mix Tapes, so clearly the management there has a journalism background too. Ten years ago the difference between reliable professional publications and webzines used to be pretty clear cut, but the decline of the established music magazine industry has made it more difficult to determine. Same as the discussion above about PopMatters and musicOMH moving to WordPress, it requires a bit of analysis now and can't just be dismissed as "it's on WordPress, therefore it's a blog". It works the other way as well - it's clear that Billboard and NME and other websites now publish what are effectively press releases as "news" to publicise a new song or album, or a "watch their new video below" story, so we can't automatically assume that everything on a source previously considered reliable is worthwhile, either. Richard3120 (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OndaRock is widely used on it.wiki.  ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у  ×°˜`°×  20:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Steven Universe: The Movie § Split soundtrack into its own article
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Steven Universe: The Movie § Split soundtrack into its own article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this meets WP:NALBUM, but if it does then a split seems reasonable. Perhaps some members of this WikiProject could take a look? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Rock N' Load
Was reading Earthandsky and found a 10/10 review from a publication I've never heard of. It is listed neither in the reliable nor unreliable list. Here is the website itself and here  is the review in question.  danny music editor  oops 19:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find anything from Google on the writer of the review, Daniel Stapleton. Similarly, I looked for Ed Ford to no success. There's two other authors that are listed only by first name, Emmie and Conor. A few reviews list no author in the body at all. "#Flashartmark" seems to be listed in the footer of all the listed reviews (including those credited to a different author in the body) that I checked; he's apparently the mag's editor. Yeepsi (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s come up in sourcing hunting efforts in the past, generally when I’m really struggling to find sources for something. I’ve generally tried to stay away from using it, because it looks like an amateur blog. Sergecross73   msg me  20:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The Young Folks
The "About Us" describes them as "a website focused on bolstering and highlighting an array of diverse and fresh talent in entertainment criticism." I have seen reviews from this website being used across music articles and I'm highly concerned about its reliability. Seems like its a self-published source that could be included in WP:NOTRSMUSIC? -- Ashley yoursmile!  14:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - it is self-published. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I know I’ve removed them from articles in the past, but I don’t recall if it was that they were unreliable outright, or so borderline that it didn’t make sense to add to a pretty mainstream article. I’ll have to dig into it and double check. Sergecross73   msg me  00:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone can write for them. Write for The Young Folks. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, that’s what it was. Unreliable. Sergecross73   msg me  01:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Brazilian certifications
As suggested in Template_talk:Certification_Table_Entry, I'll bring the issue forward here. It often occurs that Brazilian record labels claim their artists' records have been certified in Brazil, but said certifications do not appear on Pro-Música Brasil's website. The source used to validate those plaques are the labels' posts on their very own social media accounts. Are these certifications to be considered valid, when they aren't recognized by the national recording industry association?  ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у  ×°˜`°×  23:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * hey. I don’t think it’s valid for multiple reasons. Firstly, if it doesn’t show up on the official website I don’t even think we can say it’s been certified. Second, doesn’t matter who is posting on social media, certifications are too important to be social-media cited as that is not where Wikipedia gets its certification citations from. Third, even if there were reliable sources stating that something has been certified, we shouldn’t be adding that as it doesn’t show up on the official website. I’m not just talking about Brazil. If I must, I always check only the source right next to the country/chart name, never any other sources, because of the above. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 23:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already said in the other link that I don't agree with adding supposed certifications based on social media or that don't come from the official certifying body's website... and, you'll notice I specifically mentioned the "certifications" for a certain group you are interested in – see what you think about that source. Richard3120 (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * hey, sorry for the (very) late reply! I completely agree, it’s irresponsible for us to add certifications when it’s not even on the database! I’ve seen some examples of this in my watchlist, and I came to check to see if there was a consensus formed, and now I’m responding. But yea, these should definitely be removed. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Official verdict on Rock Sins?
I found a discussion from 2015 that said it was unreliable and that it was added to the list, however, it's no longer there. It currently is on neither list. They do have an about us page (nice), and here is an example of a review from them. I just want to make sure it's still ok.  danny music editor  oops 19:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Artists Direct
Hi, there is a reliable sources noticeboard discussion about this musicians source at WP:RSN, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

ABC News Radio
The majority of information on ABC News Radio seems to only contain press releases for new music and televised events, which subsequently acts as a wire service. In addition, an enquiry at Talk:ABC News Radio suggested that the website is not legitimate, as the company's social media pages redirect to ABC News Go and ABC Audio. Can there be any considerable arguments made to prove authenticity and reliability for the website, or should it be avoided when adding sources? — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve always used it without issue. The fact that it’s a division of ABC News goes a long ways as far as Wikipedia’s stance on reliable sourcing - namely that it’s being published by a professional publication. I wouldn’t say they’re “just press releases” either. Some of their work appears to be reworked/heavily based on press releases, but unfortunately that’s just a common trait of modern journalism- it’s hard to get away from that. Sergecross73   msg me  12:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Catalog numbers
and I have a disagreement regarding whether catalog numbers should be included in album articles. I believe that they can be included, in that they provide information regarding who the album was marketed to, release dates, and formats, all of which I consider encyclopedic information and particularly useful for pre-digital releases. Given that there is no equivalence for ISBN numbers for sound recordings, it also helps with verifiability. However, as I tire arguing about it with a single user, I am seeking broader consensus. Should catalog numbers be removed from album articles? What do other editors thing? Thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, you are talking about within the body of the article? I'm not a fan of including them in the infobox, because the number depends on the format and often on the country as well, so you then have to make a choice as to which number is included. I think they can be useful in a release history table, but then it could get quite long... I've seen editors add the catalog number for every country they can find on Discogs. Plus, in the vinyl days you could also get different catalog numbers even within the same country, for picture discs, LPs with a limited edition EP included in the first pressing, etc. Richard3120 (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, body of the article.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 16:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally like them in the infobox, if they're verified with a ref from the label or Goldmine, etc. I agree that it's useful information. They also help with pinning down release years, as often RS give conflicting info...sometimes comically so. Caro7200 (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe there was a consensus to remove them from the infobox, some years ago. I think it's okay to include the cat number(s) in a section covering the album's release. I work on rock albums from the 1960s and '70s, and I notice all the contemporaneous coverage usually includes them. Nowadays though, most magazines just list the record label, from what I see (could be wrong on that). On Richard's point, I'd say only the number for the main release format (ie, not picture discs, etc) need be included. JG66 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors sometimes change details about albums using info from later editions, different formats, regions, etc. Usually, this is done without indicating the source of the info. Including a catalogue number, OCLC, etc., helps to verify the info, but it should appear in an appropriate section, rather than the infobox. A link to an image of an album cover may be an easy way to verify the details. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * if it's an album from 1984, would you use the catalog number for the vinyl LP, cassette, or CD? And from the country of origin of the band, or the country they had most success in? Richard3120 (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a good question. I've very rarely added them myself, but have often thrown in a Goldmine ref in articles where I'm already adding other RS (mostly jazz), and where the number is already present in the infobox. From a purely aesthetic viewpoint, I think the number in small font in the infobox "looks" best; I agree that a long template box listing every number would be unnecessary. To directly answer your question with that specific example from 1984: LP, country of origin (or country where the album was first released). Caro7200 (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just playing devil's advocate – in 1984, the most popular format in the UK would have been the cassette, for example, and just a couple of years later the CD would have pushed the LP into third place, so the LP catalog number certainly wouldn't have been the most popular format to quote in that country. And I asked about the country of origin because I was thinking of the recent sad death of Tony Lewis of the Outfield... the Play Deep album sold over three million in the US, but never even charted in the UK, and the band are completely unknown in his home country (his obituaries in the UK had to explain who the Outfield were). So there's an argument that it's far more likely that the US catalog number for this album would be searched for than the UK one. But I agree with Sergecross below, it's not something I spend my time worrying about, whether it's included in the infobox or not. Richard3120 (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But if that information appears in WP, that means it has been verified as reliable. It's impossible for me to check every catalog number for every album. Discographies are already complicated and largely unsourced. Let's not complicate things further. The more information that is added to WP, the more information needs to be checked, verified, sourced, taken through the long WP processes. Who is going to do all that work? Some magical, mythical person down the road? Let's stop mortgaging the future. I try to live in the here and now. I try to avoid leaving work for imaginary people to do. There are over 27,000 articles in the jazz project—and TWO people who work on it routinely. To say there have been obstacles to progress is a huge understatement. Let's think about how to improve these articles, not simply dump more crap into the landfills and hope it gets better.

Vmavanti (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, RIP. If we have yacht rock, then the Outfield is definitely an example of water park rock... Caro7200 (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I know "yacht rock" is a funny, irreverent term, but I discourage anyone from using it on WP. It's a derogatory term and POV. I'm not here to put down anyone's choice in music. I'm not here to tell readers what's "good and bad" when it comes to music, a subject that is extremely subjective. I'm here to gather facts and pass them along to all readers.
 * Sorry, it was a joke. Not to continue this tangent, but I like the Outfield, I like "Your Love," and I like that I've been hearing the band and its hit in water parks for 33 years. Caro7200 (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What would most readers be interested in? They want to know the name of the album and the year of release. Why do you need more information than that?
 * Wikipedia is for everyone, not merely "record collectors, discographers, and musicologists", which is a tiny group of people. A niche within within a niche within a niche. Way out of the mainstream. The appearance of a catalog number means nothing to the average reader. Write down an album title, label, year, and catalog number on a sheet of a paper and give it to someone. Ask them to tell you what it signifies. Nine times out of ten you will get a blank stare. Like most numbers, it doesn't contain information, it represents information. It's a symbol, an abstraction. It is a signifier that may lead somewhere else. On its face it means nothing to 99% of readers. A person may have a special interest in these things. That's fine. Other people have special interests, too. There's also a public interest. Wikipedia is not both a specialist encyclopedia and general one because that's a contradiction. It's impossible. Wikipedia is not identical to New Grove. I have told people this many times over the years: Just because a piece of information is in New Grove, or any other source, doesn't automatically mean it belongs in Wikipedia. I would like to know what the barrier is to understanding this fairly obvious point.
 * See WP:Five pillars, in particular the second full sentence. Wikipedia does not exclude "record collectors, discographers, and musicologists", and information which provides context and may lead to further research should not be excluded.  Frankly, if I mention King Oliver or MC5 I'll get a blank stare from 99% of people as well.  That doesn't make it unencyclopedic.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I don’t really think it’s something most readers care about, so I never search it out or add it personally, though it’s such a minor thing that I don’t think I really contest it if someone else digs it up and adds to something on my watchlist either... Sergecross73   msg me  16:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I have personally added them to release history sections if they're reliably sourced. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 15:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)`

We Are Movie Geeks
Would We Are Movie Geeks be considered unreliable? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, are you asking about its reliability for movie reviews, or album reviews? Richard3120 (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Richard3120, for the music video section in Cups (song). The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

RS Verify (Soundblab.com)
Hey all. Would this be considered a reliable source? Sounblab.com. Thanks! – zmbro (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - I honestly couldn’t even find an “about us” page in my check of the mobile version, but it looks like the type of website that lets anyone create an account an write something, so it would fail WP:USERG. I don’t see any evidence of anyone having any sort of professional credentials either. Sergecross73   msg me  14:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

AOTY, again
I know Album of the Year (website) came up here a year back – Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 59. Just recently AOTY ratings have been added at a few Beatles FAs and GAs. The 2019 discussion seemed to wrap up with general disapproval of the site, which I agree with. Apart from the user-generated aspect, it seems to me that the AOTY album pages are either extremely limited in their scope and/or users can and do add in their choice of high-scoring professional reviews. The site also appears to have no qualms about adding user reviews from sputnikmusic, I notice (eg for Rubber Soul).

Most of Wikipedia's article on the site isn't sourced at all. And the statement there that No Ripcord often uses AOTY ratings is only supported by a tweet saying "Want to keep track of all of our 2015 review scores? The folks at @aoty got you covered. One worth bookmarking." – which would suggest that AOTY often "uses" No Ripcord, not the other way round.

Personally, I can't see why we're using it – the site doesn't seem any more professionally run than Discogs or WhoSampled, there's no list of staff or evidence of editorial oversight, and nor do AOTY ratings appear to be particularly notable. It's as if someone started the site (probably pulling content in from Wikipedia(?)), the article on AOTY appeared here after two rejections at AfC and it's still arguably unworthy of inclusion, yet some editors have jumped on board and use it as yet another score/ratings toy. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, no? ... Any thoughts out there? JG66 (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I know I said at the time that I wasn't against it, but since then, one of the biggest issues I've found with it is that unlike Metacritic or AnyDecentMusic, it doesn't have a minimum number of reviews limit. I've removed it from some album articles because its "averaged rating" is sometimes based on just one review, which isn't much of an average. Richard3120 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly – any single extremely high (or low) professional reviewer rating, and that becomes the AOTY rating.
 * The worst thing is, by including anything from the AOTY, Wikipedia is legitimising the site for the world. And it's part of that embracing of scores and ratings at the expense of non-formally rated reviews that I've talked about here in the past – about how it often skewers an album's critical reception. Unlike Metacritic, AOTY only considers formal reviewer ratings (which is just as well on one front, because who would trust AOTY's interpretation ...) so, add that to the paltry number of reviews, the site's ratings are even less useful and definitive. Again as I've said before, loads of publications didn't use formal ratings until about 2005 – Mojo, A.V. Club, Record Collector, PopMatters, No Ripcord instantly come to mind. JG66 (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've never seen an entry that had either 1.) obviously bad sources for criticism or 2.) numerical assessments that seemed unfair. If you have any way of quantifying how prevalent either of those are, then I could be persuaded to say "remove it". The Sputnikmusic user review is definitely poor judgement. Has anyone here ever reached out to the site? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you mean by quantifying the prevalence of such errors (and who said anything about "bad sources for criticism"?) – looking through all the pages myself? seeing if reliable sources spot similar problems? Well, there's none of the latter, because it seems no one but Wikipedia gives much time or recognition to AOTY. And of course one can reach out to the site – that's just it: individuals can dictate its content, but where's the editorial oversight? I can't believe we omit websites created by proven, individual music journalists for inclusion on our list of reliable sources, yet even entertain the thought that this hobbyist site might be usable. JG66 (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , "I don't see what you mean by quantifying the prevalence of such errors": everyone makes mistakes. If they include a user Sputnikmusic review but are otherwise diligent about only including professional reviews, then that's okay. "who said anything about 'bad sources for criticism'?": Me. As a review aggregator, if they accept bad sources (e.g. the one you gave), then that looks like they are indiscriminate and have poor judgement. If, on the other hand, they have standards and those standards are good, then they are a good review aggregator. "looking through all the pages myself?" E.g., sure. I thought that's what you just did. No one is asking you to look at all of them. Have you literally never heard of a sample before? "I can't believe we omit websites created by proven, individual music journalists for inclusion on our list of reliable sources" This seems very WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: if you have another site that you think should be included, it's appropriate to bring that up on a different thread. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In short, I just see you scraping around trying to find reasons to justify using the most base, inappropriate source for an encyclopedia. AOTY has not received any degree of recognition that entitles it to be treated by Wikipedia as a reliable source, let alone one that we should adopt as a bona fide overview of critical reception along the lines of Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. There's no evidence of any editorial oversight whatsoever. I've tagged the AOTY article for proposed deletion because it seems to me the article was an inappropriate addition in the first place – it would never have made it through Articles for Creation. And then editors who are unable or unwilling to apply any discernment to article content have jumped on the article's existence to justify including the site's ratings in our articles. JG66 (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * here's an example of an album with a Wikipedia article and an AOTY rating based on just one review . The album has been out for over three months now, so it's not likely to gain any more reviews now. What would stop someone adding AOTY to this article, when really it's a pointless addition? I know I could just remove it (and I have in the past), but then we would need a discussion about what is the minimum number of reviews needed for AOTY to be included, otherwise it would just be up to individual editors to decide. Richard3120 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with this website being added in articles, but I agree with Richard3120 by adding the AOTY rating based off solely on one review is not needed and pointless. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Album of the Year has not been established as a reliable or notable source. Wikipedia is granting it a status that nobody else seems to and elevating it to the level of Metacritic (which does receive no end of attention from independent reliable sources). How can this not be a problem?
 * Wikipedia is meant to reflect what the majority of reliable sources say about a subject. But with this, the project's becoming a culture of members shaping what is appropriate to the subject, based on the wrong criterion – a perceived usefulness factor. It's not up to us to decide "Ooh, I like that, let's use it"; it's determined by whether a source is widely accepted by reliable sources. Especially, I suggest, when it comes to something as subjective as critical reception. AOTY should never have been added to the Album ratings template anyway. It was done (I've recently realised) in spite of the discussion in late 2019 and then raised here as a fait accompli with an invitation for "feedback". Even then, the support was barely there, and the previous concerns weren't addressed in full. JG66 (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with this. Koavf and Peanuts are approaching this the wrong way. We’re not just brushing off casual concerns about a long-established reliable source here. We need to establish why it was ever worth using in the first place. These "I don’t see any issues” comments aren’t helpful when there isn’t a baseline consensus to start with. Sergecross73   msg me  16:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not approaching this in the wrong way. Koavf have let anyone to know that he have added AOTY in the template back in February and you kinda agreed to it at the end of the discussion. My main issue is why this discussion happening now, did JG66 have not notice this website was on the template for almost a year and decided to have an discussion where almost everybody have now accepted this website and started added this in several articles without any issues at all. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did have not notice this website was on the template until a day or two back. Are you a discerning editor when it comes to using reliable sources, or do you just like new ratings toys? JG66 (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not a "discerning" editor. I'm just saying that multiple editors have been adding the website in articles for mouths without any concerns and now you have noticed it. If we considering the website should be removed off the template, we should start an RfC first. We did it with AnyDecentMusic? back in November 2016 why not with AOTY. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Agreed that adding that to an article isn't helpful but I'm not sure that this is the problem that JG66 is bringing up here. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have no clue how you got that from what I wrote. All I wrote was, "If you can show systemic problems, I can be persuaded to remove it". You need to take a step back at how you're talking here. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't need to do anything of the sort. You keep trying to sidestep the concerns that have been raised since 2019. You introduced AOTY in Feb this year under pretty dubious circumstances, without any reference to the previous discussion. And as in February, you're continually asking "what's wrong with it, what's wrong with it?" So, I don't need to take a step back; you need to stop deceiving people. It's not a case of what's wrong with the site's content. It's a case of what is right – what was ever right – about the site per se, and therefore whether our apparent adoption of it as a source is at all legitimate. Because it's not. You and others, I'm sure, like it, but the voice that matter on this issue – independent reliable sources – don't appear to notice it even exists. So why the hell should Wikipedia consider using it? JG66 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:AGF, good buddy. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah right, Ringo, but for once would you actually address the pertinent issues, rather than putting the onus on others to justify their opposition to this shite source. You've railroaded it through, so your citing WP:AGF is lame, to say the least. You appear to have some messiah complex as to what the project can and should be. JG66 (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wow. You really should re-read this thread. In fact, have someone else read it and remove the names and see how that person respond to the way you're talking here. You are completely out of bounds. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Cut the crap, Koavf, and stop continuing to take the discussion beyond and around the issues that have never been adequately addressed. You've got one chance here to explain why the site's lack of notability and lack of clear editorial oversight should allow for its inclusion before I undo the addition you made at the album ratings template. These requirements regarding notability and editorial oversight are pertinent to every single source that's used on Wikipedia, and certainly those that are discussed on this page. Serge has said something similar above. JG66 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Have a nice life: I'm not talking to you if you're acting like this. Please note that changes to Album ratings needs a clear consensus. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is precisely my point and the rationale I'd be using: where was the clear consensus when you made the change in February? JG66 (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_60. The take-away as I interpret it was, "Yeah, sure, okay." ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not really much an consensus, you're were asking other editors feedback.


 * There wasn't an consensus on this. I think it would be better to start an RfC first and then remove AOTY off the template, only if other editors would agreed with the removal. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , We've been thru this before: you came to me saying that you had been adding this site to articles! User_talk:Koavf/Archive056 ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I know about that and I still don't agreed the website should be removed either, I was just giving JG66 advice. If an editor is concern about an website may not meet Wikipedia's notability, they can request for comment. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * yes, "not really a consensus" is exactly the way I read it. And there was a reaction that I'd say bordered on general disapproval in August 2019, yet the change was later made anyway.
 * The point is that at no stage did the site ever satisfy concerns expressed by those editors, and then it was presented as a source ready to use in February. It still doesn't satisfy requirements for inclusion on the (not unimportant) basis of editorial oversight and notability, but it's as if some editors are looking the other way and pretending this isn't actually a concern. Your suggestion is sensible, Peanuts, but really it should be a case of pulling AOTY off the template and then have an RfC about whether it is a reliable source and whether it should then be added.
 * We're affording this site a position it simply does not deserve, and just for some numerals and another album rating, for Christ's sake. It's not important and it doesn't improve the encyclopedic quality of our album articles. Our elevating AOTY affects its status, desirability to advertisers perhaps, and revenue ... who knows? – but it's not for us to be pulling an organisation out of nowhere and treating it as if it's an authority. Full stop. I find it desperately ugly that Wikipedia could be influencing this – but it does have that sort of influence (a few of us were talking recently about how "our" work ends up recycled by professional music journos; there's half a book on George Harrison that's totally ripped off from WP articles – the list of references even looks the same!). It worries me that editors don't see the potential consequences of this sort of decision.
 * But anyway, that aspect's aside from the RS requirements. I'm getting confused about why we have these requirements now ... or whether we have them at all, in fact. The rest of you, speak up, please, come on ... JG66 (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am with JG66 on this one. It is a WP:SPS and thus not usable as a citation on Wikipedia. Note that Wikipedia itself is a SPS and thus not usable as a citation on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it, I gonna start removing AOTY off of articles for now. If anyone against this removal they can response at WP:RSN and explain why they think this website is reliable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WP:RSN about this source. Please contribute and/or clarify my request as necessary. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 00:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just in case this sinks to the archives without further comment - it’s getting absolutely thrashed at RSN. There’s strong consensus against use. Sergecross73   msg me  02:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Should we add AOTY in WP:ALBUMAVOID, since most of the editors has voted the source as unreliable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think so. We can wait until it’s over, and archived so we can link to it better, but ultimately yes I think it should be on there. Sergecross73   msg me  19:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And it needs to be removed from the ratings template also, of course. JG66 (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That depends if Koavf want to remove it off of Module:Album ratings or somebody else can do it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , If the community wants it gone, I am willing to remove it. Similarly, any other template editor can. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3AAlbum_ratings&type=revision&diff=987095701&oldid=942487210 ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we considered adding AOTY at WP:ALBUMAVOID now? The discussion is archived. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, go for it. JG66 (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, consensus is pretty solid. I’m on my phone at the moment, so it’d be difficult for me to do, but feel free to do it. Sergecross73   msg me  14:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, I also added AnyDecentMusic? in WP:RSMUSIC as well. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Internet-Archive-ified link on album page
I've replaced the Pitchfork review link on the page for VHS or Beta's Le Funk album with the Internet Archive version of the URL. I've verified that the replacement link is clickable, but I haven't dug into the Wikipedia's IA policy/style guidelines, so my edit may not line up with Wikipedia best practices. So, posting an FYI here, in case anyone feels like checking my work. There's a strong possibility that I will forget all about this soon, and never look back here for replies.

Bsammon (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look and adjust if needed. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Public Image 'First Issue'
Hello, I am a new user. I'd like to edit the page about this album. I want to check the rules because I am someone who is quoted on this page. I was there during the recording and have what I believe is a clear memory about it. For example I absolutely know that Jim Walker was not singing on Fodderstompf - he'd left hours before, yet credited with vocals. The quote relating to my own name is fine but the entry reads as if I was 'Roadie 2004'. I made the comments in 2004 but worked for PiL in 1978-1980.

So it's about verification by first hand experience rather than citation. I understand why there must be guidance. Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In essence, the relevant policy here is that no one should add anything based solely on personal experience. The way to get your recollections in is first to have them published in a reliable source. EddieHugh (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm afraid EddieHugh is right... "I was there" isn't a suitable source, unless you have been quoted in a reliable source - is there a biography, or maybe an article in a published magazine, in which you have been interviewed and made this statement? The album is rightly considered a post-punk classic, and the article is in much better shape than when I last saw it a couple of years ago. But I know arguments still rage about who played drums on which track on the album, and who was present during each song's recording. Richard3120 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it really has to be this way. Think of it - if we let people add things strictly on the grounds of “personal accounts”, then what’s stopping anyone from creating an (free) Wikipedia account and saying whatever they want? In theory, I could create an account called “TheRealJRotten7” and claim that I saw Jon Bonham in the studio playing on tracks. (I would never, but surely you get my drift?) Sergecross73   msg me  05:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

OK Thanks all. There are problems with the page - the title being the first. The band is Public Image Limited and the album is 'Public Image' a tricky one as the single has the same name and the album is always known as 'First Issue' but it is factually incorrect. Re: Jim Walker singing, this is a false claim and has no citation or evidence, it should be deleted even if I can't show he wasn't there, no-one can show that he was. It is self evident in any case as he is Canadian and the accents on 'Fodderstompf' could not have come from him, there are only three voices: Wobble, Levene, Lydon. Re: "I was there" there is documentary evidence that I was PiL's roadie on Fodderstompf.com, and photo of myself and Lydon at the Manor. Not sure how to do hyperlinks now but can show this. However I fully accept and understand that I cannot simpy remember my own version! But the page already quotes me as being present during the recording of the song 'Fodderstompf". If that is permitted then I already have verification I think. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are free to delete anything that doesn’t have a source. (I recommend leaving an explanation in an edit summary so people know what you’re doing. (Deleting content without explanation is often perceived as vandalism.) If anyone re-AFDs unsourced content, they’d be in the wrong as well - once content is challenged, it’s the burden of the person wanting to include the info to provide proof through reliable sources.  Sergecross73   msg me  16:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The album has always been referred to as First Issue, as you acknowledge, and per WP:COMMONNAME, this is the title that should be used, even if it isn't factually correct (same as Led Zeppelin IV is not the official title of the album, but everyone calls it that). I'm actually surprised that this is at Public Image: First Issue and I think there is a serious claim for moving it to simply First Issue because the vast majority of reliable independent sources call it that. Sergecross is right above – you can remove material that has no sources to back it up, and I think we all agree that would be better than keeping false claims in the article, even if we can't prove other ones. Richard3120 (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

MetalReviews
Hi, there is a reliable sources noticeboard discussion about this source at WP:RSN imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If there’s anyone else who would like to weigh on, it’d be appreciated. I don’t think it’s particularly a close call, it’s just being plagued by a lack of participants. Sergecross73   msg me  16:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion was archived without a formal close, but looking it over here, there’s no valid argument advanced for its reliability, so I’d support listing it at WP:NOTRSMUSIC. Sergecross73   msg me  15:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Future_Nostalgia
Interesting questions above which you might want to get involved with around "listicles" and mid-year lists. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 12:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Music Reliable Source Search Engine
I have created a search engine meant to search for reliable sources for music articles. The sources were taken from WP:RSMUSIC. It currently does not have any other source from any other project. It can be found here. Should it be added to WP:MUSIC/SOURCES? Lazman321 (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If it works, sure! WP:VG/S has one for video game sources too, so they’re definitely valid, I think it’s just that not many people know how to make/maintain them. Thanks for doing it. Sergecross73   msg me  14:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

metallized.it
metallized.it describes itself as "the independent webzine for metal in Italy". By definition, Zines are WP:SPS. Would anyone object to this site being listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID as SPS? -- The SandDoctor Talk 22:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - Looking over their About Us page, it doesn’t appear that anyone has any real credentials, outside of the usual “being really passionate about music” type stuff. Sergecross73   msg me  14:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Stormbringer.at
Stormbringer.at describes itself as "The Austrian Heavyzine". By definition, Zines are WP:SPS. Would anyone object to this site being listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID as SPS? -- The SandDoctor Talk 22:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - See their About Us page. It doesn’t appear that anyone has any real credentials, outside of the usual “being really passionate about music” type stuff. Sergecross73   msg me  14:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Electronic instruments and production gear sources
Requesting a review of these sources for the purposes of writing about electronic instruments and production gear:


 * Resident Advisor
 * Music Radar
 * MusicTech
 * Synthtopia (edit: this was deemed unreliable by in a previous discussion, which I'd forgotten, but here it is again anyway for posterity)
 * Sonic State

I'm often fighting off attempts to add poorly sourced content to articles on these subjects, so it would be good establish a longer list of acceptable and unacceptable sources for WP:RSINSTRUMENT. Popcornfud (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The only one I’m already familiar with is Music Radar. I’ve always considered it a reliable source, and used it without problem in article creation and AFDs. I’ve always assumed it was a sister website to the WP:VG/S-approved GamesRadar, though I suppose I don’t 100% know that to be true. Sergecross73   msg me  17:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've used Music Radar and MusicTech a lot, because they both look and smell reliable to me, but I'm not an expert on the Wikipedia criteria really. Popcornfud (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like MusicRadar and GamesRadar are indeed sister sites, which I never realised. Popcornfud (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 100% agree that Music Radar and Music Tech are reliable sources. Music Radar is part of Future plc, which publish all the magazines listed in the "Magazines" drop-down menu at the top right of the page. All these magazines are readily available in British newsagents and in online form from Pocketmags and other websites. Music Tech is also a widely available magazine, published by BandLab Technologies, who also own NME and Uncut.
 * Resident Advisor is a funny one – it's long been the number one website for DJs, producers and club nights to promote themselves, but it also has its own reviews of albums. I think it's one of those ones which we should "use with caution" and only use certain parts of it. Richard3120 (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks. I've added Music Radar and MusicTech. Popcornfud (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I see Resident Advisor is listed as a reliable source at WikiProject_Electronic_music/Sources, though there's no discussion linked, which always makes me slightly suspicious. I also think there might be some useful work to be done in combining these lists of sources. Perhaps sources concerning musical instruments or music production would be better in other WikiProjects (eg electronic music or musical instruments) than the albums project? Popcornfud (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox album has an RFC
Template:Infobox album has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sock  ( tock talk)  01:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Changes in Certification Table Entry and Certification Table Bottom
With the changes in music consumption patterns came changes in music recording certification standards, which in turn require changes in they way these certifications are listed, which is mostly through certification Table Entry. Editors who are interested in how these changes are going to be implemented are invited to contribute to the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Certification Table Entry. --Muhandes (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Just Jared Jr
Would Just Jared Jr be considered reliable? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You’ll generally get more of a response if you give some context, reasoning, or even a link to whatever this is... Sergecross73   msg me  02:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Sergecross73 The link to the website is not working. Here is the message I got:

Error: Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.

To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save. Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. goo.gl, t.co, youtu.be, bit.ly), you may still be able to save your changes by using the direct, non-shortened link - you generally obtain the non-shortened link by following the link, and copying the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded. Links containing google.com/url? are resulting from a copy/paste from the result page of a Google search - please follow the link on the result page, and copy/paste the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded, or click here to convert the link. If you feel the link is needed, you can: Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you). Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page. Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia. The following link has triggered a protection filter: justjaredjr.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.

Solutions:

If the url used is a url shortener/redirect, please use the full url in its place, for example, use youtube.com rather than youtu.be, If the url is a google url, please look to use the (full) original source, not the google shortcut or its alternative. Look to find an alternative url that is considered authoritative. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Justjared is a very well known celebrity gossip website. "Celebrity gossip" would make you think it's not reliable, but it is widely known and quoted on other publications, so I wouldn't dismiss it instantly, it needs looking into. Richard3120 (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Never heard of that one before, but that’s not really my content area either. Anyways, I think the massive block of text above is indicating that the website is blacklisted already, which would likely mean that it’s already been deemed unusable in prior discussion. Sergecross73   msg me  14:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I most definitely wouldn't recommend using this when it's a gossip site. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 20:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Turbo-folk compilation albums


A tag has been placed on Category:Turbo-folk compilation albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Chalga compilation albums


A tag has been placed on Category:Chalga compilation albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Compilation albums by Bulgarian artists


A tag has been placed on Category:Compilation albums by Bulgarian artists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Are these sorts of lists notable?
Are lists like List of Varèse Sarabande albums acceptable under current Wikipedia inclusion criteria? Spiderone 15:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say the fact that it's almost entirely sourced to Discogs which isn't an RS is a big problem – iMDb and Amazon aren't reliable sources for this sort of thing either. This seems to fail WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. There are almost no blue links in the entire article, and those that exist only link to articles about the films which don't mention the music or the soundtrack at all. Richard3120 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Leaning not notable. Best case scenario is a WP:TNT. There are just hundreds and hundreds of unsourced and unlinked, contextless entries on there. Sergecross73   msg me  22:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Relevant deletion nominations for lists and categories of albums by recording location
Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 10

Articles for deletion/List of recordings made at Abbey Road Studios

FYI. postdlf (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Original soundtrack
Hello, I have a question related to the style of presenting television soundtrack album(s) and single(s). For example, in Crash Landing on You, I have presented the album and singles under different heading. But in other articles, like Itaewon Class, there is no such demarcation. Also I have seen, like in Parasite (2019 film), single is listed within the infobox. So, what is the correct or the best way to present the soundtrack when single(s) are released individually prior to the release of album and then again as a part of an album.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  14:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I definitely don't like the way it's done in Parasite... that should definitely not be at the top of the article, and should be in a separate section further down. Richard3120 (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Metacritic for notability
In the case of List of Such-And-Such Year Albums articles (e.g. List of 2020 albums), where only one reference appears per entry, would a ref to that album's Metacritic page be a good enough source for establishing notability? Asked User:Mburrell about this (Discussion found here) and they took the stance that it doesn't. I wouldn't be surprised if there turns out to be a consensus in agreement with that stance, but it never hurts to ask anyway. QuietHere (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Kanye West studio albums Good Topic
Hello. I was wondering if anyone was looking to renominate Kanye West studio albums as a Good Topic. It is currently demoted at Former featured topics as Yeezus didnt reach GA in time to prevent it from demotion. Since Yeezus, The Life of Pablo, Ye, Kids See Ghosts, and Jesus Is King are all Good Articles, I think this can be reinstated as a Good Topic. As I did not do any of these GAs, I thought I leave a note here. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , You might be interested in this... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the mention; this is definitely of interest to me since I have brought West's past four released studio albums to GA status. However, would it be classified as acceptable to try and reinstate this as a good topic when Donda: With Child is currently pending release? Or would it be fine as long as the album becomes a GA soon enough after its release to promote demotion... and about the demoting you referenced, it was The Life of Pablo not becoming a GA in time that led to the demotion of the topic. --K. Peake 21:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you could renominate it as Donda: With Child is currently not released. Then, whenever it is released, it'd be in the Future retention periods section with a grace period. As for Life of Pablo, that's what I meant, not Yeezus. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will nominate it soon, though I will take a look through the album articles to fix any potential issues first. --K. Peake 08:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an essay tag on the musical style section of Graduation, could you help with fixing this please because I've contributed to improvements just now for the album, Jesus Is King and The Life of Pablo? --K. Peake 13:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I made some improvements but it needs a lot more work. If you don't mind, I think you or someone else would be better on revamping it and I could do some spot checks/copy edits. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contributing and providing feedback; I will try to work on the section after work today if I have the time and if not, I'll go through it another day in the upcoming week. --K. Peake 10:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have now improved the musical style to get rid of the bias as much as I can, though should I go over the songs sub-section too since that does not have the tag anywhere, so is it really needed? --K. Peake 18:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the songs part looks fine. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag now, though are there any remaining issues that you can see with West's album articles? --K. Peake 19:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Only one issue. Graduation claims to be the most streamed Spotify album from 2007. It is mentioned at List of most-streamed songs on Spotify but the citations there don't help. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I could not find a source, and have removed the information. However, I will be working on Watch the Throne to fix the lead for now. --K. Peake 07:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done the required work on Watch the Throne; should the GA topic be good for nomination by now? --K. Peake 12:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you should be fine. The major concerns were the citation needed and essay tag for Graduation, which were both resolved. You did most of the work ;) Though i did see the template was updated to include Donda as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * and, I have nominated the topic now, wish to comment on the nompage? --K. Peake 08:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Uniform format
Should the order, for both songs and albums, be

...
 * Critical reception
 * Accolades (critics' rankings)
 * Awards and nominations

or

...
 * Critical reception
 * Accolades
 * Rankings
 * Industry awards

In the first, I think it's kinda awkward for the aesthetic to find boxes so early in the article, while in the second "Industry awards" includes fan-voted awards.

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The latter order makes more sense, and user-voted awards, unless discussed by reliable secondary sources, should never be included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * By fan-voted I mean MTV VMAs, Teen Choice, etc, which are voted by the public Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Another stylization question
Here's another stylization issue. A subject about which can never make up my mind.

Check out FeelingPulledApartByHorses/TheHollowEarth, a double single by Thom Yorke. Until recently these song titles were written out conventionally as "Feeling Pulled Apart By Horses" and "The Hollow Earth", but renamed the article, reflecting how the song titles are listed on streaming services. This isn't how they're described in reliable sources such as Rolling Stone or Pitchfork. My inclination is that we should just write them out normally (and my personal editorial preference is to do that) but I'm not sure. Popcornfud (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've done some digging and found that Radiohead's website listed the title for the 12" single of these songs as "FeelingPulledApartByHorses/ TheHollowEarth", thought curiously Yorke lists the second song title as containing spaces in the text below, while he does not do the same for the first song. I would personally chalk this up to a typo or Yorke's affinity for adding spaces in words where they don't belong. Music publication Spin lists the song titles without spaces in this article from 2017. The world-famous record store Amoeba Records also has this 12" single listed on their site as containing no spaces . Hostagecat (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Joe Walsh. There Goes The Neighborhood
The released date of Joe Walsh's There Goes The Neighborhood album, March 10, 1981 is incorrect. The correct release date is May 15, 1981. www.45worlds.com/vinyl/album/5e523 You'll have to write this www.45worlds.com/vinyl/album/5e523 address down on a piece of paper and type it in because it's black instead of blue. It's suppose to be blue so that you can click on it and it would take you to that page. But because the address refuses to turn blue for some reason, You'll have to write it down and type it in and it should take to the album's page on 45worlds. (Jeckylback (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)):
 * This would be the correct location for this discussion.  Rob van  vee  07:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no knowledge of the release date, but I’m fairly certain we don’t consider 45worlds a reliable or usable source. Sergecross73   msg me  18:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's right, I don't believe 45worlds.com would be a reliable source., I suggest looking through back issues of Billboard and Cash Box (BB at google books; BB, CB and others here) – perhaps you'll find the exact date, or at least a month that's closer to the date you're saying is correct. (I remember we came up with a similar solution for Dark Side of the Moon years back. There, numerous biographers had clearly got it wrong and repeated others' mistakes – because it was shown that the album charted a week or two before the date seemingly favoured by the majority of reliable sources.) Although, it's worth considering that Walsh's album might have been delayed, even if March 10 was the intended release date. JG66 (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Both dates are wrong. This charted on w/e May 16, 1981, so clearly it wasn't released the day before. This page states "early this month"... given that release dates in the USA were usually on a Tuesday, I would guess that it was released on May 5, 1981. But that's OR, so I'm just going to leave it as "May 1981" – that at least can be sourced from Billboard. Richard3120 (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Help with track listing for specific article
Decoded (EP) is an EP with a couple singles, one of which was remixed and the other was released as an "EP" with three remixes. I assume these should all be listed in the track listing section, but I'm not exactly sure how. Can any project members help here? Much appreciated! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't normally list singles or specify which songs were singles in the track listing section. Perhaps you're thinking of a "Singles" section, where the singles and their commercial performance (if applicable) are listed?  Ss  112   06:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think I'm just used to seeing section like You_and_I_(Lady_Gaga_song), but of course this example is an article about a song, not an EP. I just assumed the remixes and "Gratify" "EP" (remixes) are most related to Decoded (EP) and should be covered appropriately there, but I was not exactly sure how. Thanks for your feedback. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

trivia or not and how do we define it
I have noticed content like this being added to album articles. I have seen content like it ("this is the last album on which ...", or, "this is the only album...", or "this is the first...") added and removed. I don't know of a policy or guideline. It's usually removed because it is trivia. It certainly makes sense in the article on the artist, but does it make sense in the album article? Is it WP:OR (in which case it does not belong) or is it WP:CALC (in which case it's acceptable)? Obviously, if two or more sources write about this, it makes sense to include it with references. Suggestions? How have you responded to this sort of content? Have you added content like this? Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My personal thinking (I'm not aware of specific WP policy on this, correct me if I'm wrong) is that an album article should really only be discussing things very specifically relevant to the album, its release, and the time around its release. If a band's line-up changed leading up to or immediately following the album, that's something that probably belongs in that article, but any changes/anything that happens in the band's further future which isn't immediately relevant to the album itself shouldn't be added. As for that info belonging on the band's article, I would say yes but add that the Members section on said article, as well as the band's history, should already be doing a sufficient job of telling you when people were part of a band that the statement itself becomes redundant. If no members leave a band, the fact that the article doesn't say anyone left should clue readers into that.
 * Also of note, the example edit you use here is actually incorrect information that should've been removed anyway, see Ø (Disambiguation) for that. QuietHere (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Unless it’s relevant to that one article, don’t add it, because at the end of the day (I’m using this as an example), no one is gonna care that the band lineup hasn’t changed since the album came out, because that is purely trivia. Now if it’s anything like “this is the last/first album with(out) band members...”, it needs to be 100% reliably sourced, as it would be subject to the biographies of living persons policy. D🎅ggy54321 (ho-ho-ho) 15:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * +1 on everything Doggy just said. I think info like this needs a citation like usual, and should only be included when it's directly relevant to the subject. Popcornfud (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally remove that sort of thing. In my opinion, it’s one of those things where there’s a way to do it right and a way to do it wrong, and unfortunately it’s a bit hard to draw a concrete line on when it’s okay or not, so a lot of clueless editors do it wrong. It’s noteworthy to mention when a long running guitarist leaves and a band releases their first album without them (for example Guns N Roses and Slash.) Or maybe when a pop star stops working with the same producer. (Kesha and Dr. Luke). Those are worth a mention. But it always feels like editors start grasping for factoids when obvious ones aren’t there. “This is the first album without a self-titled track”. “This is the first album to have x number of tracks or x number of minutes long.” “This is the first album feature some studio tech to offer indecipherable backing vocals on one track”. Etc etc. I’m constantly trimming that sort of junk out, but it’s hard to cite any hard rule in handling it, it’s usually just me saying “that’s not really important...” Sergecross73   msg me  16:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No policy, but five editors have come to consensus on this. One or two more in agreement would probably make it clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and, knock on wood, I wouldn’t expect any substantial opposition to this. I’ve rarely had any big debates on the issues from experienced editors, it’s mostly been from misguided passerby editors and IPs who seem to operate on the premise of “as long as it’s true it’s worth mentioning” (which of course flies directly against WP:NOT and its many variants.) Sergecross73   msg me  04:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the answer's somewhere between the two positions, in that, in the example given, the point hasn't been added very artfully. It currently sits as an add-on so, yes, it does appear pretty trivial – more like an FYI or by-the-way. But if the point about the two replacement band members was handled so that mention of a new and permanent line-up was made first, followed by the specific changes in the line-up, it would be genuinely informative. Of course, the whole point needs to be supported by a reliable source, whether in the lead or below. As I say, the problem lies in how the information is currently presented, imo. JG66 (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The Needle Drop
There is a discussion at WP:RSN on the Needle Drop should be considered as reliable or unreliable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Punctuation
I'm sure this is in the archives, but...an editor advised that punctuation in song titles goes outside the quotation marks. The editor linked to MOS:INOROUT. Is this a "real" rule? I don't particularly care, and only put inside due to American stylization norms, I guess. Rolling Stone, Spin, etc., do so as well. Not talking about British sentence structure, which I follow if that's established, just song titles in American articles specifically. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's how I do it... complete sentence, put the period/full stop inside the quotation marks... partial quote from a sentence, put it outside the quotation marks. I guess it helps that it's how it's usually done in the UK, so I'm used to seeing it done that way. Richard3120 (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style (MOS:INOROUT) is the style guide that we use, so yes, it's a rule ("guideline", technically). If a song title itself includes punctuation, that should be inside the quotation marks used for the song (unless there's another policy/guideline that I don't know about) – compare So What (Miles Davis composition) with So What? (Anti-Nowhere League song). So, "Miles Davis wrote 'So What'", or "Did Miles Davis write 'So What'?" EddieHugh (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, gotcha, but strange. This would seem to contradict the British/American English usage guidelines--and I don't mean that in a silly isolationist way. Caro7200 (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Q36 (album) by The Rentals
This draft was up for G13 deletion but I think it was simply WP:TOOSOON as the album was released June 26th and the draft created on the 28th. Posting a note here in case anyone is interested in developing it into an article, if possible. S0091 (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are five reviews in reliable sources, so it does seem that a basic stub could be created for this album. Richard3120 (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Added some refs to this. Caro7200 (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Fantano
A RfC has begun at WP:RSN regarding Anthony Fantano's reviews should be count as reliable. Please add your comments there if interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (This is separate from the notification a couple sections up. Sergecross73   msg me  03:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC))

The Von Pip Musical Express
Hi, there is a discussion at WP:RSN as to the reliability of this music blog, imv Atlantic306 (talk)

Album images at FFD
The list of ongoing FFD discussions: --George Ho (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Files for discussion/2020 December 22
 * Files for discussion/2020 December 12
 * Files for discussion/2020 December 8

Mustan Sydämen Rovio or Pyre of the Black Heart?
Hello to all, I'm preparing an article about an album by a Finnish musician that was first released in Finnish and later re-recorded (the vocals, at least) and re-released in English. Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, should the article title be the album's original name (Mustan Sydämen Rovio) or the official English name (Pyre of the Black Heart)? Victor Lopes Fala! • C 16:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * English language Wikipedia only means the articles are in English and it links internally only to other English language articles. Foreign language albums should be listed as originally posted. I would recommend for example looking at the many Spanish language albums that have come out, for example Cosas del Amor (Enrique Iglesias album). The English language Wikipedia cannot handle non-Romanized letters, so Korean albums need to be translated to be listed, but otherwise albums should be listed under the original album listing when possible. Mburrell (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would argue that however English-language media list it is how we should attempt to list it. If they list a work in a language that does not use the Latin alphabet in translation, they we should as well. If they use transliteration, then we should as well.
 * However, the original question is different and the editor was asking if we should use the Finnish name for the album or the English one. If it were me, I would use the Finnish title for the article to Marco Hietala's album and leave a redirect from the English title to it. I assume that the album meets WP:NALBUM or at least WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, that was my original plan, just wanted to see if I am following common sense. Victor Lopes  Fala! • C 20:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

In Utero page move
Please see this discussion. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Ultimate Classic Rock considered a reliable source?
I'm sorry if this is a very basic question - I'm not super familiar with how they run as far as reliability and verifiability. I couldn't find them on RSP, so I figured I'd check. -- a lad insane <small style="color:#008A00">(channel two)  03:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say so – they're owned by Townsquare Media, and several of Townsquare's other brands are used across Wikipedia, such as Loudwire, Noisecreep, XXL and A Taste of Country. Like most digital publications these days, their output is mostly regurgitated news stories and "watch the latest video from xxxx below", but I have no reason to think they're not impartial. Richard3120 (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Same. I've always used them without issue, more or less on the same grounds. Sergecross73   msg me  16:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Me too, and they've not been questioned in GAs and even FAs that I've had any hand in. Years ago here, I remember thinking we should address UCR directly: from memory, one or two other Townsquare Media titles were deemed reliable and UCR was mentioned in the same breath but not actually added to our list of RS. It's not an outstandingly high-quality source, by any means, but it's no worse than several sites we do allow. JG66 (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Headline Planet
I was baffled to discover a hefty paragraph sourced entirely by Headline Planet at the Drivers License (song) article, especially after the lengthy discussion about this a few months back as well as its inclusion on WP:ALBUMAVOID. Also seeing it used multiple times on Folklore (Taylor Swift album) and Evermore (Taylor Swift album). Can someone have a look at the discussion and confirm that we've ruled out all usage of HP, or are there certain exceptions?--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 11:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're missing anything, I just think that there are a lot of casual editors who don't know if the source list or how to identify a reliable source. Even if there were exceptions, there's really no reason to settle for even mediocre sources for extremely mainstream/popular subjects like modern Taylor Swift articles. Sergecross73   msg me  12:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was deemed unreliable period, with no special exceptions for use. I'm surprised it was added again to Folklore when that page sparked the discourse in the first place. Anyways, genuine question: can a bot tag all uses of an unreliable source across WP or is that not possible? Not everyone takes the time to manually tag URS when they come across them and I think that further exacerbates the problem because then other editors think the source is okay to use. Or maybe if a notice appeared everytime someone attempted to save an edit with an unreliable source, like the ones that appear when you use a blacklisted source. Ik this probably isn't the place for that but I've never actually asked about that before. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * if it’s possible, those are both awesome ideas. We definitely to get it listed at WP:RSPSOURCES as well, and potentially blacklist it if there is prolonged use. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I never knew the source was unreliable. It’s not listed at WP:RSPSOURCES, which is my go-to if a source looks questionable. I can start removing the source from Folklore and Evermore, citing this and previous discussions. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think RSP is more for general sources. Headline Planet may be a bit specific for them. Wikiprojects often have their own lists of reliable sources that are more subject-related. We've got WP:RSMUSIC and WP:NOTRSMUSIC, the video games WikiProject has WP:VG/S, etc.  Sergecross73   msg me  13:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to see this be cleared. I will take it upon myself to remove it from the pop music articles I come across. Doggy54321, since we have most Swift articles on our watchlist let us make sure it isn't added back.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 12:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * sounds like a plan! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Based on, should we move this up to RSN and request to have it blacklisted? Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it should definitely be blacklisted. Editors are using it too much. what do you guys think? D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm all for its removal/blacklisting. Perhaps something similar could be done for the biggest culprits in kpop related articles (Soompi, AKP, KB). Way too many articles cite them (far more than HP) and it's very difficult to contain given all the new uses that keep popping up. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree., if we run HP through the blacklisting process (I am not that familiar with it), can we try to do Soompi, KoreaBoo and Allkpop as well? They are commonly cited on Wikipedia, and are listed at WP:KO/RS, rendering them unreliable. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While I don't personally come across Headline Planet all that much (they must cover rock music less) I find Walter's rather extensive list of its use concerning, so I have no objections. Sergecross73   msg me  00:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not my list, it's just a template I have seen used in RSN discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Feel free to add your voices there. I have noticed that if no one comments on proposals like this, the proposals die. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Walter thank you for doing it. so you don't miss it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I already supported the idea, but I appreciate your ping! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the non-notable information about WP:SINGLEVENDOR charts seems to have been re-added to the Drivers License (song) article using Music Feeds as a source. The wikipedia article about the site looks overly promotional, the About Us page invites random people to write articles, as well as press releases. Bottom of the site says that it is "a property of Mandatory, an Evolve Media, LLC company". Where do we stand on this one?--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 10:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if that's the extent of their "about us" section then I don't think they're reliable either. At the very least any contributor stuff would violate WP:USERG. Sergecross73   msg me  14:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m going to be bold and remove the sources. Per Serge's comment, the contributor stuff violates WP:USERG, and per Marano's comment, that pretty much deems the source as a whole unreliable, as it doesn’t look like there is a way to tell the staff apart from the users. Even if there is, the site reminds me of Buzzfeed. They use POV language and puffery ("iconic" is a great example of both) as well. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

RYM Interview Reliability
This edit by User:Stackler adds a reference to an interview hosted on Rate Your Music. RYM is a deprecated source, and the edit is tagged as such, but all the discussions/documentation about RYM's deprecation seem to center other parts of the website and not necessarily whatever segment hosts this interview. Are RYM interviews an exception, or are they also unreliable? Was that judgment already made and I just missed it? Either way, the documentation should be updated to clarify this. QuietHere (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR notification
I have nominated Adore (album) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – zmbro (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)