Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52→Archive 55

The Needle Drop

I've been seeing his reviews show up in the infoboxes lately. From all I gather, he posts videos on youtube. Unless other people can point out something else I've missed, what list should he be added to on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Youtube this reviewer's only medium? If so, it'd probably belong in the "don't use" section. I've never heard of this source before though, so anyone feel free to enlighten me there's a lot more to this... Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
From the wiki article on The Needle Drop and this interview, his only output appears to be his own site and several YouTube videos. I think he's be in the non-notable part of the site for now, but I'm was hoping someone here would know more about his work and maybe could find something else. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73:, in case you are curious, here's an idea of how many articles are linking to him here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I clicked on the first album I recognized, which happened to be Gold Cobra. In the article's review chart, where it usually gives a number or star rating, it lists the album's rating as "hummus". Is...this a value that is given to score releases from this source? :) I couldn't check because it was unsourced. Any idea what his review scale is like? Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
he usually rates on a scale of 10. that said, i don't really think his reviews should be used in articles; as far as i know they are completely self-published through youtube, even if they are well shot and edited. i would equate it to using well written reviews by a prolific IMDb user on film articles. ~ Boomur [☎] 19:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Boomur. His reviews are usually pretty good, but it's just one guy with a YouTube account and should not be held to the same regard as Rolling Stone. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I would say he falls under WP:SELFPUB WP:SPS. Because of the coverage of his reviews by third-party sources, I'd say he's acceptable as long as he doesn't make statements about living people.--¿3family6 contribs 02:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
What sort of third party coverage is it getting? Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Wired, plus briefer mentions (this, this, and this), to start. Also, per WP:MOSALBUM#Critical reception, "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." Fantano has worked as a professional DJ for the NPR station Connecticut Public Radio ([1]). I don't see how he isn't reliable.--¿3family6 contribs 05:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The Needle Drop was actually started as a radio segment for CPR, and Fantano also started text reviews. His vlog didn't start until 2009. This guy is certainly a professional critic.--¿3family6 contribs 05:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm really impressed with this guy - I hadn't heard of him before, but this is what I got from just a quick g-hits search: The Vine, AUX, Consequence of Sound, Paste.--¿3family6 contribs 05:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe you're confusing professional with popular. Allow me to explain using a completely unrelated example. Steve Wilkins is a bigfoot hunter. He has been interviewed countless times (including once by myself) as "a bigfoot expert" and was most prominently featured on the TV show Joe Rogan Questions Everything (more here and here – I'm having trouble finding his appearance on a Washington news morning program and a national radio show on YouTube, though. Perhaps they're under another version of his name like Steven or Stephen or something, I really don't have time right now to look it up.) The problem is, he's not really a researcher, he's just a cool dude who likes to go camping with his friends and take thousands of pictures of trees hoping to capture evidence that bigfoot is real. So why are so many sources using him as a credible source? Because for a time a couple years ago his name was the number one hit on a google search. The more times he would be interviewed, the longer his name and his website (which appears to have since been taken down) would stay as the number one result for bigfoot researchers. Anyone needing a "bigfoot expert" for something would simply see that he was the top result, see that he had been interviewed before, and then simply stop looking. But he was merely popular, not professional.
In most of the sources you've provided, Fantano is clearly only receiving coverage because he's a popular vlogger, not because he's a credible, professional reviewer. The Consequence of Sound one you provided seemed like it was the only one that actually treated Fontano as a credible reviewer. Being on public-access media isn't really the most compelling argument either. CPR merely distributes some previously recorded packages from NPR, and becoming a "DJ" on public radio is as easy as convincing someone you won't be offensive on the airwaves — literally anyone can do it, that's why it's called "public" radio, because it's made by the public. Heck, I've even been on public-access TV a few times, does that make me a professional anything?
Plus, if we're really going to define someone as professional because he has YouTube channel or has been on public access media, it really sets a precedent for future sources and could open a can of worms. Should we also include all YouTube album review channels like AlbumReviewTV and SpinIt or all public access radio DJs including Scott Carney and Shonti Elder? What makes these four examples different from Fantano other than he's more popular in the media? Fezmar9 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
agree with Fezmar. Fantano has an impressive cv, to say the least, but media coverage of his work doesn't make him a professional reviewer so much as an Internet personality. Most of these sources pretty much sum Fantano up as "guy who is popular on YouTube"—quoting the intro from TheVine, he's "currently sitting at over 318,000 YouTube subscribers, with hundreds of videos which regularly rack up tens to hundreds of thousands of views"; Paste introduces him with "Fantano’s YouTube site contains album reviews, some of which have garnered more than 300,000 views". In other words, Fantano is notable because he is entertaining, popular, and generates a lot of interest in what these other sources are doing, ie writing/consuming album reviews. These sites aren't seeking him out to write reviews for them, or looking over and publishing his reviews. He's getting coverage because he is of interest to the people in the target audience for these media outlets. Obviously this makes him notable, which is why he has a Wikipedia article. However, not every person or institution with a Wikipedia article counts as a reliable source. The only thing left that would qualify him as a professional is his stint on public radio, which, as Fezmar said, doesn't really require much more than a clean mouth and the ability to make a playlist, so i don't think that makes him a professional DJ. If he writes a review for another site and it gets published there, then that's probably fine to cite, but i do not think that his standard, self-published videos should be referenced (a la Mr. Scaruffi). ~ Boomur [☎] 20:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
First off, I would argue that unless it's been broadcast on radio or published through a third party or had some other type of editorial oversight - such as Fantano's collaboration with Consequence of Sound or feature on Triple J, Fantano's reviews should be treated as reliable self-published statements - they should not make statements about BLPs.
Second, thank you Fezmar9 for explaining some of how NPR works. Having helped produce a show for my father on a local television station, I know what you mean about how anyone can do it.
Last, I agree that not all the sources I gave above talking about Fantano are of the same quality. And my intention was to establish that he has a reputation as an influential critic. I don't know exactly how someone would show he has a reputation "for fact checking and accuracy." The way that I've seen it done in the past on this talk page is to show how other sources, determined to be reliable, rely on content from that critic or source. The Consequence of Sound collab should help with that, as well as the Triple J source I gave above. I also would not compare him to Scaruffi, who reviews music as a hobby, as Fantano reviews music as a full-time profession. In addition to these points there are these two sources that I found: The Music.com mentions how Fantano is changing the face of criticism. However, the coverage is quite scant, just a brief intro for the interview. But, Time Out gets more in depth: "We were puzzled when we were sent a press release heralding the imminent arrival in Australia of an American music critic. We’ve got those too, we thought, flicking some lint off our Half a Cow T-shirt. But, you see, Anthony Fantano represents a new era of music critics – none of that archaic writing stuff." My point to all this is not just that he's popular, but he's treated as a legitimate critic. As I said from the start, I would say that his self-published reviews on YouTube, unless vetted by a third party, should be treated as reliable, but self-published.--¿3family6 contribs 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I feel more like you make a good case for him being notable than being reliable as a source to be used... Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
If a critic's work has been published in reliable, third-party sources, more than once, couldn't their self-published work also be considered reliable, at least from the point where they were published by a third-party onward?--¿3family6 contribs 15:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I think most of the time, we decide to only use the content that has been published, unless its someone really well known, like Siskel and Ebert, Robert Christgau, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thank you, that's what I was trying to determine.--¿3family6 contribs 16:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have a custom search set up for searching the right sites and excluding the wrong sites at once? (WPVG has a custom search linked at WP:VG/RS, but even a list of operators to copy/paste would be helpful to compile.) Makes it much easier to search for sources. If such a thing exists, it would be worth linking in prominently on this page. czar ⨹ 20:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

'Authentic' recording environments

Hello, I got here by accident, having noted some albums whose infoboxes describe them as 'Studio' albums. Especially in classical music, there are many albums which are not 'live' (ie not an actual performance), nor recorded in a studio nor under studio conditions (multi-tracking, multi-take, extensive mixing, 'patching' etc.). Many of the most notable classical recordings of the last 20/30 years have been 'single take' performances in an acoustically sympathetic 'real space'. Certain companies have even insisted on a single stereo mic. placed at a real listening distance. I can also think of non-classical albums in which the place/method of recording is notable and is not a studio, (this will usually be noted in the article text/later in the infobox, of course). Is there some way of getting the description 'STUDIO album', out of the infobox ? Pincrete (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

i think the general idea is that "live" means that there was an audience present, and for a studio recording there was not, and the artist was in some sort of recording environment besides a venue. this does not imply that multitracking was used, etc. some rock bands have recordings that have been done in one live take, but they are still studio albums because of the setting and context. ~ Boomur [☎] 22:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand the broad distinction, but still feel 'studio', isn't appropriate, in the same way that one wouldn't describe a film made 'on locstion' as studio, just because a filming environment was temporarily created. I'm not suggesting a 'third category', just that losing the word 'studio' would be good, and allowing the text to record what was notable/distinctive about the recording location/techniques. Pincrete (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
If you change the {{Infobox album}} template to say "Type=" instead of "Type=studio" you will accomplish what I think you're talking about, the infobox won't say "studio" any more. However I agree with Boomur that in this context "studio" means "not before a live audience" and so would include the type of recording you are referring to. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, will try, however (especially with classical or other acoustic recordings that have chosen a location for its acoustics amd have avoided multi-mic, multi-track and mixing etc.), 'studio' seems inappropriate. In many respects this is more authentically 'live' than multi-miced/multi track REAL live performances (but without an audience).
Update, Ive just noticed this on the Live album page "Additionally, several classical artists and ensembles use empty venues to record what would otherwise be termed studio recordings. An example of this is … ", so they seem to be saying an 'empty venue' recording counts as live! Don't know what to do now. Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
In my view, empty venue recordings are not live. For purposes of the broad infobox definition I'd consider them studio. That is, they weren't recorded in a traditional recording studio, but they were recorded under controlled conditions and not before a live audience. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Instinct makes me agree that 'live' should be reserved for REAL public performances, but I still can't see how that makes an 'empty venue recording' into a studio recording, especially when the venue has been chosen for its acoustics and 'purist' recording techniques are used. This is mainly a consideration for classical and other 'wholly acoustic' music, since as soon as an instrument is electric or as soon as a singer/musician is using a mic, to some extent 'studio' values/techniques are operating. Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Black Wolf Records

Hey there WikiProject! List of Black Wolf Records artists & songs and Black Wolf Records discography could use some attention mostly because it's setting off my BS detector. I've noticed a chief contributor adding some questionable content to articles, so now I'm scrutinizing some of their other contributions, including at this article. I can tell that the record label exists, but the groups in the article don't match the hits that I'm getting on Google. For instance, "Black Wolf Records" "harry styles" produces no hits, and I'm not getting any reliable connections between Black Wolf Records and Carly Rae Jepsen. And the groups listed here aren't even in the article, so I'm a little suspicious. (And the GG Allin inclusion is highly suspect) I figure you all have better resources than I am aware of, and I'd appreciate some community input since I'm getting a bit of a hoax vibe. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, @Sparklism:! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Harp Magazine

Hello, just getting discussion going for the addition of Harp (magazine). It was a print magazine in the 2000s. The website is long down, but can be accessed through the archive. information about the magazine can be found here. Since it's been in print for nearly a decade, I think it's ok, but just wanted to create discussion first. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, but yes, I would agree with that assertion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I figured it'd be a go, but I just wanted to get a conversation first. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
It's been about half a month with no other issues, I'll add it as a reliable source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Muumuse unreliable?

Is Muumuse unreliable? 183.171.180.141 (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Although it's a blog it appears to be reliable. Apparently the author is a regular contributor to the TIME magazine [2] which republishes his blog. So if it is available I would always take a link to TIME's website for sourcing to avoid any speculation about the blog. De728631 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Rills

Why does Sgt Pepper mention the gaps between tracks on albums as "rills" in 'Recording and production' paragraph 6. A quick Google search isn't helping me find more mentions this term. Even The Beatles (album) mentions the gaps but doesn't refer to them as rills. ('Recording' paragraph 4).—TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

In any event, it seemed extraneous where used, so I removed it. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

New ratings stylisation for PopMatters, NOW, Fact, Kerrang, etc

I think these recent additions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Online and print – [3], [4], [5] – call for some discussion here. (Dustblower, I admire your work, but it might be best to run things by other editors first, rather than placing them on the project page straightaway.) Here are my thoughts, and I'd welcome others' …

  • Fact magazine. Those red discs look gigantic, in my opinion, compared to the more subtle-looking star ratings that a good portion of ratings use. Is there some way the discs can be made to look smaller?
  • Fact #2. It's not clear that the white (red-outlined) circle constitutes a half. Only when one holds the cursor over the symbol – – does it become clear that it's a ".5".
  • Kerrang!. Maybe I'm a bit dumb, but I took the grand-looking final K there to signify that the score is 5/5, when in fact it's 4/5. I think the non-applicaple K(s) in an album rating need to look more opaque, but what we have currently is non-applicable Ks given a more significant appearance.
  • Now. First question, should these be in red, to match the colour used in their reviews?
  • Now #2. Similar to the discs for Fact, I really think these need to be reduced in size. I can't help thinking they overwhelm star ratings and numerical scores when applied in articles. (It's worth knocking together a dummy ratings box with a few star ratings, plus the Now Ns and Kerrang! Ks, to get an idea.)
  • Now #3. As with Kerrang!, the non-applicable Ns need to be given a less significant look, imo.

This issue about alternative colours (from the light-orange stars we're used to) raises a few other possibilities. If we are going down this route – a brighter yellow for PopMatters' discs, red for Fact, light blue for Kerrang!, etc – then surely we need to think about the following, for consistency:

  • AllMusic uses blue stars.
  • Rolling Stone uses red stars.
  • Contrary to the comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Online_only, No Ripcord appears to use a disc-based system also – all green with the "result" in dark blue. Classic Rock uses little red squares, with non-applicable squares greyed out. I'm sure there's no end to the variations when we consider how many publications and sites are listed at Albums/Sources. (To put it mildly, we could be opening up the proverbial can of worms here.)

I'm thinking all of these examples need to be borne in mind if we are going to adopt the new symbols for PopMatters, Fact and so on. Looking forward to hearing what others make of this … JG66 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a standard, and that the color and scale of some of these ratings systems need to be adjusted. I like the red color for discs, it's easier to see than the gold. I say, red for discs, gold for stars. The K's right now are blue, and I don't see a problem with that. For squares, I'm okay with gold, but I think black squares, such as these, , are easier to see.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Can't we just pick one for all of them, and stick with it? It conceptually makes no difference whether a review gets 3 out of 4 stars or 3 out of 4 circles or boxes or whatever else. Its not like the color or shape has any bearings on the actual score... Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
My feeling is we should stick with a single colour, regardless of the "units" being used to measure quality. To me, the lighter yellow for PopMatters clashes visually with the gold/orange stars. (In other words, go for gold/orange discs.) On that front, I've never understood why the Christgau stars are rendered in black, and I've never understood either why there's not a blanked-out third star when he rates an album with 2 stars (anyone?). Plus, as I've said, some sources use blue, red or black stars – The Daily Telegraph is another that goes with red stars, btw. I think the alt colouring will lead to all sorts of problems.
I take your point, Sergecross73 – what's relevant is that a reviewer rates an album 4 out of 5 or whatever. I like the idea of an alternative to stars, though, but not to the extent of discs, Ns, Ks and others … I think that's just overly fussy. (MusicHound uses "bones", so there's another option.) My preference would be to use a single colour for all, and allow an alternative to stars – either discs, or the boxes you mention, 3family6 – because we need something generic for when the source doesn't actually rate with stars or numerals. Failing that, we could use the generic option every time, whether the original rating is in stars, discs, Ns, bones … In which case, the boxes appeal to me.
I'll drop a line at Talk:Album style guide and WP Rock to get some input from other editors. JG66 (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
i think, while we should use a consistent style in general, perhaps the Christgau stars should remain black, as they have a different meaning from conventional star rating systems. ie, Christgau's stars don't mean 1/?, but something quite different. if it rendered as one (or two or three) gold star(s), it would be easy to confuse it for a conventional system, representing 1/5 etc. i don't think saying CG "star" ratings are out of 3 makes sense, either, because the stars are more a measure of niche-ness than quality, as i recall, and many albums "exceed" 3 stars by falling into the letter-grade range. 2/3 stars implies the album got a 67% rating and 3/3 implies 100%, which isn't what those CG ratings mean. ~ Boomur [☎] 07:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea of giving them all a single, consistent look, in my opinion the stars. Stars are more universal in terms of illustrating ratings of media. People see it and immediately know what it is and how to interpret it. If I'm looking at a list of ratings, it's much easier to instantly compare them if they all have the same look, especially if they are also of the same scale. Branding our ratings based on the source seems out of character for an encyclopedia, in my opinion. We could take it a step further and put the sites' logo next to the rating instead of text. It just seems unnecessary and also makes the templates harder to maintain. — MusikAnimal talk 06:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
i agree with this. the fact that some sources style their ratings differently doesn't change the meaning. readers will just want a visual of each rating, and getting a general sense from the table of how the album performed will be easiest and most natural when the visual isn't confused by different shapes, colors, etc. stars are pretty standard, as are the image and concept of "half stars", so i think it's fine to stick with that. whether the stars were blue has no bearing on how an album was received. ~ Boomur [☎] 07:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I created this mess in my hastily attempt at accuracy.Dustblower (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, no worries, Dustblower. It's just a case of considering how changes impact elsewhere.
I sort of agree with what Sergecross73, MusikAnimal and Boomur have been saying. But then, shouldn't we make an exception from the standard (stars) when only numerals are used? Obvious examples are Paste (with their use of decimals – 7.8/10) and when a site/publication never uses symbols of any sort, eg scores out of 10 as in NME and Uncut. Having said that, I suddenly find I'm tripping myself up: the likes of Spin magazine used numerals (max 10) in 2002, but those Classic Rock-style squares by 2009 …
Boomur, you've kinda proved my point about the more recent Christgau rating system. It's so esoteric, it's the rock reviewer's equivalent of the Masonic handshake! What I mean is, how's the average reader to know the rationale behind RC's stars? (I've reader other editors saying the same thing, particularly about Christgau's N symbols.)
I put the word out at a couple of Project talk pages; I'll do the same at Temp:Ratings box. It would be good to establish consensus on the issues of possible alt symbols and alt colours, of course, and with as many voices contributing as possible. JG66 (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
of course, i agree that Christgau's ratings are sort of incomprehensible, past the letter-grade scale, to a reader not familiar with the system (which i would guess is most readers). unfortunately, the symbols he uses have very specific meanings, and these are not easily assignable to analogs in other review sources. even the descriptions he gives for letter grades are bit odd. this is not a fully-formed idea, but perhaps it would be preferable, for modern ratings below a B+, if "favorable" or "unfavorable" was written in the review table, and then the CG-specific rating was elaborated upon in prose. the "dud" bomb might be self-explanatory enough for the average reader, but i don't think it's a stretch to replace the character with "unfavorable". then again, a problem arises here, because many of Christgau's prose reviews are too short to actually determine whether an album was, in fact, favorable or unfavorable from his point of view. how do we express something like this as a cell in a table? for the star-ratings, should we bother with the table at all? (sorry if i've done too much statement of the obvious; i know it exists but i'm not totally familiar with all the background on discussion of CG reviews) ~ Boomur [☎] 07:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't want us going off at too much of a tangent from the main discussion (and this is coming from an editor who's often the king of tangents, I think …) No, my opinion of the usefulness of Christgau's CG reviews is very low, and I think they're way too over-represented in album articles right now. If his Doyen-ness writes a substantial review, as I believe he used to do for publications like Blender, then fine. But add a confusing rating system to scat prose – that John Linnell link being a particularly bad example – I can't see that it offers any encyclopaedic value whatsoever. After all, they're are plenty of reviewers out there who make it abundantly clear what they like or dislike about an album, and why!
Anyway, any thoughts about the stars and numerals issue … Retain numerals when they're the currency in the original review, but for any symbols, use stars as standard? JG66 (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding the icons - I think I prefer stars because readers tend to associate them with being a review score. But I'll support just about whatever, as long as its standardized.
  • Regarding Christgau's review scores - I don't think they add encyclopedic value either. I'm generally against using review scores without any real context (as is WikiProject Video Games, where there's a general consensus not to include review scores if there's not context.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with JG66: use numerals where the source uses them, and change any icons that come in various numbers to stars as in . De728631 (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
okay, moving away from Christgau for now, my support lies with the above: use symbols when a review uses them, and standardize to stars, and leave numerical ratings as they appear in the source. (i could also get behind moving Christgau's "star" ratings out of review tables and leaving the reviews for prose if there is sufficient content.) ~ Boomur [☎] 22:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Would this be a bad time to bring up XXL, which uses a rating system based off clothing sizes? The possible ratings, from least to greatest, are S, M, L, XL, and XXL. I usually render the ratings this way - XL (4/5) - so that a reader unfamiliar with the rating system can understand it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
i like your solution, though maybe listing the conventional rating first (e.g., 4/5 ("XL")) would be better? just for the sake of clarity. though i'm not sure if that's actually more clear. i think since those ratings actually have a meaning that is easily analogous with a numerical system (unlike CG), it's okay to use numbers as a stand-in! but i think it would also be fine to preserve the actual format in which the rating was given (the "size") alongside the number. at least in this case, since it's short and easy to express. i'm not sure if there are other similar situations, though! ~ Boomur [☎] 04:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think we ought to uniformly standardize all ratings in numerical form into stars if they are out of ten, such as Clash, Uncut, Spin and PopMatters. Yet, Pitchfork and Paste should be presented in numerical form since they use precise scores.Dustblower (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Ratings should either be all numerical or exactly what the publication uses. I can't defend exceptions for specific publications. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz so you're against standardising all symbols (stars, discs, squares, Ns, bones, Ks, etc) into stars? You'd rather see the original symbols reproduced, or all star/disc/square [etc] ratings reconfigured as numerals – is that right? (Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick there, just want to be clear ...)
After the discussion here, going back 10 days or more, it would be great to come up with some sort of consensus, if possible. I do like the idea of using gold stars as our standard symbols (which is pretty much what's in place in the majority of cases, from what I've seen – say, with PopMatters discs, MusicHound bones, and others). I think coloured symbols add something visually next to walls of prose discussing an album's reception (at least, with the album articles I typically work on, 1960s/70s era, the Reception sections tend to be pretty long). But I'd prefer to retain numerals when no symbol appeared in the original rating.
In the recent past – following the lead of another editor, I imagine – I've been changing instances where a PopMatters rating has been rendered as stars in an album article, to a numerical score, because PM ratings don't appear as stars in the reviews. Same with Spin's ratings. Now, though, I can see that that's not the best approach at all. As another reason for us needing to come up with a solution, I think it's worth noting that for PopMatters we currently have three different styles across our album articles: stars (again, in most instances); yellow discs, as shown on the Albums/Sources page; and numerals.
Is anyone interested in a straw poll on the subject? (Next question: does anyone know how to go about starting one?!) JG66 (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think the only reason for wanting to render any rating to stars--in cases when the source itself doesn't--is to puff up or highlight a high score for readers. It happens quite often, especially by IPs and new users who are likely fans of the album, and I've spent a lot of time reverting them lol. It's similar to what the page on WP:GWAR says about genre warriors who are attracted to the pretty colors of the infobox and choose to edit only that. Personally, I feel that genuine readers of an article will notice a rating rendered in digits, even though stars would draw more attention--WP caters to a general audience, but hopefully it's not a superficial one. As far as PopMatters, I see a digit where their "disc" rating is at the bottom of their reviews, so that case seems to be addressed by the template documentation (emphasis added): "if a reviewer awards something a rating of '4' (expressed in digits not stars) on a scale of 5, you should simply write it as '4' or '4/5' in your article ... Note that ratings on a scale of 10 can be hard to read if expressed visually with images." Dan56 (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Another thing... - Perhaps we should let the editors who are involved at Template:Rating or have designed it to weigh in? They might know more about the accessibility issues that could accompany rendering a rating on a scale of 10. Dan56 (talk) 06:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I messaged some of them to see if they'd like to weigh in. Dan56 (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: The whole mess appears to violate MOS:ICONS. We should not be using icon graphics, or Unicode workarounds that look just like icon graphics, in poor attempts to emulate the stylization of the rating systems from various publications. It's getting out of hand. Just use stars or number for all of them. This would also solve the problem of several of them being confusing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC) PS: Numbers would be preferable, since we can specify the range: "Rolling Stone: 4.5 of 5, Kerrang 3.5 of 4", etc. This is actually important, because different publications use different scales, and it's even regional. Most US publications have a 5-star scale, but even as nearby as Canada, most ratings system [for anything - restaurants, etc.] use a 4-star scale.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that most of this falls foul of WP:MOSICON. We definitely shouldn't invent our own system of little icons to represent scores, if the source just gives a number. I'm more open to icon use where the source does so, but let's not use lots of different esoteric icons across different articles. We should also be clear about what the denominator is - SMcCandlish makes a good point there. bobrayner (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm in favor of what the template documentation page currently says, which is to use the stars template when the publication uses stars and to use digits (i.e. "4/5") when the publication uses something other than stars. Dan56 (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm also in favour of that system. Simple, effective. — sparklism hey! 06:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Why not just eliminate the ratings completely from music and games like films and television series already do, since MOSICONS could impede the use of stars? I like the way it is done for instance on Silver Linings Playbook. We could remove the visual altogether in preference to putting the ratings in prose form.Dustblower (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
i think there's something to be said for including a concise visual representation as a summary of critical reviews. i think it's convenient for casual readers to be able to see information from different sources directly alongside each other without having to go through prose. after all, that's how most aggregate review sites format their information (albeit usually with a short quote alongside the review score), and the review section is basically serving the same purpose.
of course, the opening paragraph of the review section is also a brief summary of an album's performance, but the table provides far more information in an easy-to-digest format. ~ Boomur [☎] 01:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Separate articles for initial and special edition album releases

Hello. I've been looking through the documentation on albums but I can't seem to find what I'm looking for. Frequently in Korean popular music, an album is released first as a regular edition. Then a month or two later, the album is released again with a new cover and maybe an extra track or two, and is called a "repackage". My thinking is that these releases should both be covered within a single article, as the latter is only a special edition of the former. However, I'm finding a few articles where the two editions are split into two articles. Can you provide guidance? Thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Decisions on how many articles a topic deserves should always depend on the amount of information you have. For example, there wasn't much information about the reissue of Adore, so everything one could say about the reissue was condensed to one section at Adore § 2014 CD/DVD reissue. However, there was a ton of information about the reissue of Teenage Dream, so a separate article was created at Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Great, that's exactly the kind of info I was looking for. Thanks!! Shinyang-i (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources

Have all of these sources been vetted for reliability and independence? I know that AllMusic has been questioned as a reliable source due to its inclusion policy, and lack of standards. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Code (band) From what I've seen in the past, editors have considered Allmusic.com as unreliable as a source to establish topic notability and As for Allmusic.com, I don't see how it can be a measure of notability since it accepts virtually all comers (Allmusic.com submissions). See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Allmusic.com continued ; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive258#User:Temeku reported by User:183.171.168.48 (Result: ) If Allmusic.com is not reliable for genre classifications, should there be a note to that effect in this table? --Bejnar (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This...has not been my experience at all. I've seen an overwhelming support for Allmusic being reliable in all things except for using the genre listed in their version of an infobox, because its uses a lot of broad, vague genre. Even then, it can be used for genre if its mentioned in the actual prose. I'm surprised to see this, considering it's used in almost every album article out there, and is virtually never disputed. I also find it strange that your evidence is a single user's comment at an AFD from years ago? Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
AllMusic is suitable for helping to establish notability. The only problem we have with them is their genre sidebar which may be contradicted by the reliable, expert prose review. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. And I think that's what the RSN link above was all about - their rather liberal use of vague genre like "heavy metal" or "pop/rock" to virtually every rock band that ever existed, for example. Just stay away from the sidebar genre listings and you're fine. I guess it wouldn't hurt to add that to the chart if its not already on there, but otherwise, it definitely belongs in the reliable/usable section. Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Sources to this list?

This is a different topic than that above, but heading title is fitting for it: Should we merge or redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Sources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources? The album project list is active and maintained, and far more extensive, while the music page list hasn't been edited since 2007, and is highly specific to only a small number of magazine issues out of thousands upon thousands of published works. Also, the album source list has become pretty much a good list for music articles in general, so maybe lead for it should be expanded in scope?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favor of anything that makes it easier for these sources to be recommended for musician biographies as well as articles about albums and songs. The sources guideline was probably placed at "music" instead of "albums" because it is applicable to more than albums. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Support - there really shouldn't conceptually be any differences between the two lists, and I'm always concerned obstinate editors are going to be like "No, that source is only reliable for album articles, not band articles", when referencing the ALBUM list in the context of band articles source discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 23:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of reorganizing, do we really need to have the sources organized by "online/print" and "online only" statuses? It...doesn't really matter, right? I've always thought it should be one big list, alphabetized, rather than 2 lists with a rather meaningless split... Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

i think there's some merit to serparating (or at least sorting?) by format but maybe "online/print" and "print only" would make more sense? obviously online sources will be more accessible to most users. maybe just as a column in the table though? ~ Boomur [☎] 06:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of the terms "clean/unclean vocals" on Wikipedia

Should Wikipedia use the terms "clean/unclean vocals"? Weigh in here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Use of the terms "clean/unclean vocals" on Wikipedia. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. They're common terms in specific genres of metal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's my stance too. I'll leave a comment there. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Error

When u list the musicians....you list Christopher Joyner on keyboards, but when u click his name it comes up as a professor who dies in 2011. This Christopher Joyner isn't dead. He just joined the band Heart as their new keyboard player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.192.99 (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

i found a link to Christopher Joyner on this article, It's About Time (Marc Ford album), and removed the link. if there are any more pages that incorrectly link to Christopher C. Joyner, please post the names of those articles here, and note that in the future it would be helpful to say which article you are referring to when you leave a comment on this page! thanks ~ Boomur [☎] 04:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Quietus

I notice that there's no mention of The Quietus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. It looks like a perfectly usable site to me, with many well-written reviews and exclusive interviews - what do other editors think about including it on the list of sources? Thanks — sparklism hey! 14:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Added it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I looked it over, and I approve of it as well. (Established staff and editors, some of which wrote for other RS's, professional website, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Rapid work guys, thanks! — sparklism hey! 16:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Studio" albums?

While I've found discussions in the archive that address questions in this direction, I haven't found anything that is right on target. At issue is the number of "studio" albums at Blue Öyster Cult (and associated articles). I've started a talk discussion there. Two questions in one here.

1) Cult Classic is new studio recordings of previously released songs. Is this a "studio album"?

2) Bad Channels is a soundtrack with 2 songs by BOC, 9 songs by 5 other artists and a full film score by BOC. Is this a "studio album"? Comments and/or reference to previous work on this would be appreciated. In hopes of keeping any discussion in one place, please respond at Talk:Blue_Öyster_Cult#How_many_studio_albums.3F. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It Won't Be Soon Before Long

There's an IP added unproperly sources, especially Rolling Stones where says "one of major pop rock sellers" does not means a pop rock album. Has any reliable sources for others? 115.164.220.105 (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That's to It Won't Be Soon Before Long? Please don't link headings.
I see a lot of anonymous editors adding material to the article. Which ones in particular? Which IP address?
It's probably best to discuss that on the article's talk page, but since you've opened the discussion here, let's finish the discussion here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles on compilation albums by various artists

I am wondering what is the point of many of the Wikipedia articles on "various artist" compilation albums. Many of them are nothing more than a track listing, and due to the lack of any interesting information to add, most of these articles are likely to remain just that, often without citations. Speaking from a UK point of view, the only possible exceptions that you could make are for the three annual Now That's What I Call Music! albums (by far and away the biggest selling compilations every year), but even here the only likely citable references for each article are for the release date and the highest chart position in the compilations chart, which as they always reach number 1 seems pointless anyway. So even for these albums, it will be difficult to expand them beyond a stub article consisting of a track listing.

I think the majority of articles about compilation albums should be deleted, or at the very least, if they belong to a series then to create one article that describes the series and just lists all the albums in that series – see Ministry of Sound Anthems for an example. The Power Ballads series is among the worst offenders – see Power Ballads (compilation album) and tell me if you can make any sense of the article and the track listings, and it's all "referenced" by links to sites around the world where you can purchase the album... and there are similar articles for the other five albums in the series. Personally I don't believe any of these articles are worth keeping. But the point is, I think we need some kind of consensus as to what articles of this type should be kept... very few, I reckon. Richard3120 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the album, various artists or not, it should be deleted if there is no coverage in reliable sources or kept and expanded if there are discussions in reliable sources. In short, only keep if the album is notable. If there is nothing much beyond a track listing on the album article, it would be good to research the notability of that album, and delete if nothing can be found in online or print sources (or audio or video, though that's probably far less common).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
That's pretty much how I see it as well, to be honest – as I said, looking at the UK charts over the last ten or twenty years I think the Now! albums are the only ones you could make a case for keeping, and even then it's borderline. Richard3120 (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
According to WP:NALBUMS: That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Indicating notability is required for any article on an album including multiple artists compilations, unless otherwise stated in a Wikipedia guideline. Victão Lopes Fala! 00:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Brit Awards 2014 and Brit Awards 2015 are absolutely typical of what I mean – Hadji87 is also the most enthusiastic editor of the Now! album articles. I admire his dedication but I'm not sure he gets the point of what makes a notable article. These compilations may make number 1 on the compilation chart but that doesn't really mean anything, and none of the other references used are valid. I can't see how these articles will ever be expanded and improved from their current states, and the same goes for many similar ones. Richard3120 (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
If they are part of a series, they could be all merged into one list as you suggested. Individual recordings will have to be analyzed on their own merits, and WP:NALBUMS should apply. Merging them with the article about the record label, for example, might be an option. Victão Lopes Fala! 20:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Redirecting the articles would be an acceptable alternative, too. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It's difficult to redirect multiple artist compilations a lot of the time, though – where do you redirect them to, if not part of a wider series of albums? With the Brit Awards albums, I would suggest they could be merged into the relevant articles about the awards ceremonies themselves, as a separate section. The Power Ballads albums appear to be a lost cause to me. Richard3120 (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Clash magazine

I notice that there's no mention of Clash at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. It looks like a perfectly usable site to me - what do other editors think about including it on the list of sources? Thanks — sparklism hey! 12:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's won "Magazine of the Year" awards, so it's clearly respected by its peers. Online editor Mike Diver has previously written for BBC Music and Drowned in Sound before moving to Clashmusic.com, and I think both of those sites are considered reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and added it. I would say, as a general rule, if it's a print publication, has a Wikipedia article, and isn't a tabloid, it's reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you, but as an aside, that's going to be a tricky rule of thumb to apply in future – I doubt we'll see many new reliable sources appear in print form from now on. Richard3120 (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Though the sources list right now is not exhaustive. I thought about going through the different music magazine categories and adding every publication listed, but I don't want to take all that time, at least not now.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Support per above. Not sure why Drowned in Sound is considered reliable? I see no site info on editorial staff and reviewers appear to be users. --Lapadite (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right Lapadite, so perhaps it shouldn't be included as a reliable site, but it underlines what I said about how difficult it is going to be going forward to decide what is a reliable site or not – virtually all music review publications are going to be online from now on, and virtually all of them are going to start as a blog or a bedroom company. The days of staff writers are over, and we're going to have to deal more and more with freelancers whose journalistic background is vague, to say the least. Richard3120 (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussions of Drowned in Sound can be found here and here. The second link I think definitively settles the question. The site, as mentioned in the one discussion, is used by Metacritic.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so it's on Metacritic. I still don't find these 'professional reviews' on the site nor any information on professional editing staff. None evident when clicking on reviews linked on the main page. e.g., review #1 by a Paul Faller aka 'LetsGetCynical'; review #2 by a Haydon Spenceley aka 'fire_on_the_skin', etc. And the site links to its Wikipedia page at the bottom. I'm I missing something? Are these main page reviews and random reviewers actually considered reliable to cite? --Lapadite (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You are correct, just being included in MC doesn't automatically make it an RS. Over at WP:VG and their source list, there are a lot of similarities between RS's and MC sources, but there are still a bunch of exceptions too, where MC uses their score but we don't consider it reliable. Just speaking theoretically here, I haven't looked into Drowned In Sound. I thought I had, but I think I was confusing it with "Consequence of Sound". Sergecross73 msg me 04:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

MetalSucks - reliable?

Is MetalSucks reliable for reviews and news articles? It's been stated by MetalHammer that they are insightful if that means anything. SilentDan (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable – For reviews, I would say yes absolutely. And actually their interviews are also top notch -- if I'm not mistaken, the two main guys who run the website used to work in the industry at record labels for a while, but wanted to do this instead. Other content is more of a grey area. One writer Sergeant D produces purely satirical content, some of the content is factually based but satirically written similar to The A.V. Club, and the rest is straight fact. So I would say it's generally reliable with some minor caution here and there. And as someone who has submitted news tips there, I know that they also do a fair amount of fact checking before posting anything as well. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's one. Terrible review, very unprofessional. Is this the sort of journalism we call reliable? (For the record, I was pretty disappointed by the album myself, so my concerns aren't related to the actual music...) Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Reviews are opinion pieces and all publications will occasionally break the mold and try something different. Take this review from The New York Times where the entire thing is in the form of questions, some of which might be seen as unprofessional, like: Hey, did you try that blue drink, the one that glows like nuclear waste? The watermelon margarita? Any idea why it tastes like some combination of radiator fluid and formaldehyde? -- and yet, this review was very well received in the journalism community. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but that "review" is a far cry from any sort of review at all. It's an image labeling the genre as "drek" and a 1/5 rating given. There's literally no prose, just a cheap shot at a band, with the label "review" plastered over the top. Pure misinformation and a bad score in an official review? Professional writing wouldn't allow garbage like that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, reviews are opinion pieces and sometimes publications will get creative or break the mold when they see fit. If MetalSucks felt that a screenshot spoke more about an album than words alone could, that's their right to do. That's the right of any publication, and its professionalism should not be judged based on this alone. Another example would be the famous case of Fortune's review of a Chris Brown album where the writer turned to the reader, said "screw you" if you think he should be judged based on his music talents while ignoring his personal life, explicitly said "don't buy this album" and rated it "no stars ever" where a normal star-rating would go. This could be seen as horribly unprofessional. Should Wikipedia deem every single article that Fortune publishes as unprofessional "garbage" because of this one review, that again, is an opinion piece? Fezmar9 (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
And again, my qualm is that nothing there constitutes a "review" at all at the MetalSucks, just a lazy screenshot. Reviewers are free to trash music as much as they please, I don't oppose that, it's just that they don't bother to say anything in their "review". Furthermore, I believe there's a large difference between the Nationally Published printed work examples you give, and "MetalSucks". What are their credentials for being a reliable source? Are they journalists? Or just some randos on the internet blogging about "Metal"? They have an "About" page, but what are their credentials? Do they have a history of writing for reputable sources? Do they have an editorial policy? History for fact checking? I guess maybe I'd be easier convinced if you gave more of a reason why they should be considered reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot one of my favorite examples! Leonard Maltin's review for Isn't It Romantic? that landed in the Guinness World Records for being the world's shortest review: "No." But back to MetalSucks. As I said above, I believe the two main founders have music industry experience. Because everyone on the website uses pseudonyms, it's a bit tricky to say exactly what their records are, but posts like this one where Vince Neilstein recounts his time spent at Atlantic Records and hearing a new Staid track for the first time pop up every now and then that suggest they're more than just "randos," but rather former industry guys who wanted to start a metal blog. Also as I said above, they do have a good reputation for fact checking. I have personally submitted many news tips over the years, some of which they've flat out refused to publish because they couldn't verify it. In one recent case, I emailed MetalSucks and said it appeared the band Old Man Gloom might be playing a joke on everyone about their latest album, and submitted several pieces of evidence such as catalog numbers, AllMusic pages and online retail store entries to support my claim. MetalSucks reached out the label and band[6] who denied everything and supplied a reasonable reason why the evidence appeared the way it did, and MetalSucks emailed me back saying they wouldn't publish anything (even though it later turned out to be true). A lesser blog would have taken my evidence and posted an entry immediately with a headline of "CHECK OUT THIS JUICY RUMOR!" So, in my personal experiences with the publication, they have a higher degree of fact-checking accuracy than say AbsolutePunk and Punknews.org, both of which have been deemed as reliable by the project. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Additional points in support of being a reliable source – According to the intro to an interview with Noisecreep "their staff of contributors includes published authors, syndicated journalists and musicians." As I said above, all writers use pseudonyms, so it's tricky to say who they all really are and what they've done. However, this post from Revolver says one of their writers was author Corey Mitchell, and this post from Decibel Magazine says one of their staff writers is Andy O'Conner, who also writes for Pitchfork and Noisey. Speaking of Decibel, MetalSucks has been in a partnership with the publication since 2010. From a downloadable presskit: In August 2010, Decibel formed a partnership with the internet’s most popular heavy metal blog, MetalSucks, to help ensure maximum exposure for both outlets across the metalsphere. Decibel’s weekly column on the site is “Fear, Emptiness, Decibel,” which informs MetalSucks’ readers about all the latest features and news pertaining to the magazine. In addition, Decibel now contains a monthly feature, “MetalSucks Presents Symphonies of Suckness,” which spotlights the best four to five posts from the blog that month." In addition to Decibel and Revolver, they've been used as a source by Spin, Billboard, Alternative Press, The A.V. Club, Exclaim!, HM, Kerrang, Consequence of Sound, Idolator, Pitchfork and NPR, among others. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Reliable evidence given here so I've changed my position to 'reliable'. I would argue however that nonexistent "reviews" such as the unprofessional & discreditable one mentioned above should not be sourced in articles. --Lapadite (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as reliable - I see very much in favor of this site's credibility. That they published an unconventional, sarcastic, and brief review one time I do not think should discredit them. Fezmar's research is excellent, and WP:OR does not apply here. How else are we to confirm as source's reliability without looking it up for ourselves? We're not writing an article here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Struck my "unreliable" !vote. Fezmar's last comment were the type of credentials I was looking for. Still surprised that a site of that caliber would write a "review" like that, but I guess even RS's goof up here and there. I'm fine with using it as long as its not that Device review... Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC on quotations in a critical reception section

See here for discussion. --Lapadite (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is Billboard magazine a reliable source?

A request for comment on this question has been posted at Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon. Piriczki (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Pending TfDs for navbox templates for individual Bob Dylan albums

Hi, WP:Albums members. There are two pending TfD discussions for navboxes for Bob Dylan album tracks here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 4#Another Side of Bob Dylan. These two navboxes are apparently similar in function to other navigation aids for Bob Dylan albums and discography; so the question has been asked "Does WP:Albums have an internal consensus whether such navbox footers are appropriate for individual albums?" Your participation in the linked TfD discussions is welcome and would be helpful. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

XLR8R

I recently noted that XLR8R wasn't included in the sources list. Is it reliable? Myxomatosis57 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say so, considering they were a print magazine for around 20 years... Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
our article on XLR8R suggests that when it was founded, it was actually just a zine—most likely independent and self-published. i don't think material from that period of its history should be used. the article is unclear about when it changed to a proper publication with a full editing process. current material published on the Internet from this source is probably fine, though. ~ Boomur [☎] 16:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Alice Cooper's Love It to Death—Featured Article candidate

I've nominated the Love It to Death article as a Featured Article Candidate. Please participate in the article's review here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Albums MOS for chart placements

Hello. I've just finished a massive merge to an album article that has what I'd consider to be a difficult-to-understand chart placement section - difficult to compare markets or different versions, info scattered around everywhere, takes up a ton of room. Yet, as far as I can tell, breaking everything up into a bunch of little tables is what the albums MOS prescribes(?). The album was released in a total of four versions. Some markets tallied all four as one; other markets tallied all four separately. Can anyone take a look at this article XOXO (album)#Charts and make suggestions about improving the readability of the charts section while keeping it in line with the MOS? This issue comes up a lot for albums from Korea, so this info will help me in the future, too. (Please ignore shortcomings in the rest of the article, as it's still in progress.) Thank you! Shinyang-i (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Using the Cover Art Archive as a source for cover art

MusicBrainz is currently able to display cover art from the Internet Archive's Cover Art Archive. Evidently the Internet Archive has some kind of API for accessing these images. See here for example [7]. Would it be possible/legal to leverage the same API on Wikipedia to display cover art for albums? Please let me know if there is a better project to discuss this in. Sizeofint (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Very unlikely that a custom development to support one external site would be made. It also renders Wikipedia fragile if that site collpases/changes. We can host low-res images of cover art, provided we use it. Were we to re-write our Fair Use policy, we could host it even if it wasn't used in an article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC).

SAW II discussion

There is currently discussion about the list of trivia and prose on the article for Selected Ambient Works II. If anyone could Talk:Selected_Ambient_Works_Volume_II#Remove_list_of_the_use_of_the_song_in_media add to the discussion here, it would be useful. Thank you! Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

All Music

I'm not sure if this has been brought up a million times already, but I couldn't find mention of it sifting through the first 10 pages of 50, but All Music shouldn't be considered a reliable source. This is particularly true on underground music in where All Music writers have no knowledge of. They clearly make genre errors very often, which can be proven to be true by fact checking on other websites that specialize in said genres. There have been countless complaints about All Music on various band pages on Wikipedia about this.JanderVK (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The textual information on AllMusic is about as reliable as you can get. They are extremely well-referenced and used by other reliable sources, they have an editorial staff, and many respected journalists contribute to the site. However, the genre tags on the sidebar are often wrong or even conflict with the written review, and furthermore are not attributable to a specific writer. You are right that this discussion has come up a million times before. The consensus is that the prose at AllMusic is strongly reliable, but the genre tags are unreliable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, there is a strong consensus that they meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, so Jander's going to need a lot stronger case than the generalities listed above to convince people otherwise, especially considering empty claims like "genre errors", when genre are a largely subjective thing - there's going to be discord with viewpoints on genre no matter what the source, and there's usually multiple potential possibilities on its interpretation. Yes, its best to stay away from their box that lists genre on the side, but that's already been established. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@JanderVK: Do you have for-instances? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think AllMusic is among the most reliable sources. If the reviewer makes a statement then the editorial board backs it up. The best JanderVK is going to be able to do is argue a local case where a notional AllMusic review is found to be at odds with several other reliable sources which are in agreement with each other. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and if that happens, then there can be discussion on the talk page to see if there can be a consensus to not include it as a source in that given instance, or just give the Allmusic stance a little less weight or something. There's definitely not anything that would warrant making it unusable on a whole. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to chime in, I brought it up back in 2007 (see this comment), though not in the context of (nor on behalf of) WP:ALBUM. But it isn't just this WikiProject: WP:JAZZ has approached something of a consensus about All Music's use of genres/styles, as well (see, for example, this archived discussion). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I should clarify that by "it," I meant Allmusic's genre classification system. I don't have any quibble with citing the text reviews themselves. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Genre warriors are going to complain about any source that doesn't recognize their "Thrash-Swing-Neo-Pop-Punk" genre. Assigning a genre is a subjective process and Allmusic employs experts in the field. Having a different opinion does not mean Allmusic is not a reliable source. --NeilN talk to me 21:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Information on how AllMusic works: [8], [9]. --Lapadite (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If there is concern about AllMusic's editor's prose, then we should discuss it. If there are issues with the genre cloud—the group of genres, usually on the left side of band articles—it wouldn't be the first time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Is AllMusic perfect? No, far from it. But their textual reviews/articles on albums, songs, artists, bands or genres is among the best and most reliable anywhere on the internet. As someone mentioned above, there are lots of very well respected music journalists writing for the site and they have an editorial staff proof reading and fact checlking what those journalists write. As such, it's hard to quibble with it being anything other than a reliable source for Wikipedia music articles. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
100% agree with that. — sparklism hey! 05:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Differing album ratings

I'd like to get some clarification about what rating to use when an album rating appears to have changed over time. The original rating for Little Earthquakes in Rolling Stone in April 1992 was 3½ stars out of five – anybody with access to this copy of the magazine can verify it for themselves (I've checked it twice to make sure I wasn't imagining things). However, 23 years later the online version of the album review has reprinted the original text, but with the rating uprated to 4 stars out of five. Which of the two ratings should be used? My personal opinion is that it should be the original, not just because that's what it was on the album's release, but also because Rolling Stone has a habit of deleting articles on its website from time to time so the newer rating may get lost at some stage. Is there any guidance on this? And yes, I do realise it's pretty pedantic to be arguing over half a star. Richard3120 (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to put (1992) after the 3½ stars. Maybe just cite the print version and not the website in the citation. My $0.02, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gyrofrog: I agree with you, and indeed that is what I did, but it has been reverted twice by editors citing the online review instead. Hence my wanting to get some kind of consensus as to which rating/review to use, as I don't want to get into an edit war. Richard3120 (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest listing both. I think this is a similar case to Pinkerton, except in this case it's the same review with a different rating, not a whole new review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, good idea – I've done that, let's see what happens. Richard3120 (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The London Session

I came across this article by chance while trying to answer this question at the Teahouse. Is it common for article to be created for albums that have yet to be released? It seems to be a case of WP:CRYSTAL to me, but I'm not completely sure. Also, I am a little concerned by the edit sum for this edit . Taken at face value, it appears that there is possible COI editing involved and the intent of the article is to be promotional in nature. Not too familiar with album articles, so would appreciate any input from those who are. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It does seem too premature, yes, as well as unnecessary. Personally, I don't think Wikipedia should cover "breaking news" for a commercial release such as this; a mention in the artist's bio article perhaps, but no more than that. And, boy, I agree – that editor's comment ("the album is coming out in a month and the bands management expressed they want the article posted") is a worry. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input JG66. The article had been proposed for deletion per WP:PROD, but the tag was removed by the editor with the apparent COI. The article has many issues, e.g., COI editing, bare urls, non-reliable sources, promotional tone, etc., but those could be tagged for improvement through editing and are typically not considered to be good reasons for nominating an article for deletion. The article also doesn't seem to qualify for speedy deletion per WP:A9 since there is an article about the band. So, the question then is whether being "premature" is a valid reason for nominating an article about an album for deletion. WP:TOOSOON#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films says that "Generally speaking, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been released, should not have their own articles unless the production itself has the coverage showing notable per the notability guidelines." Could the same be said for albums? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I'd noticed that the same editor was behind the removal of the AfD tag. Also, their contribs suggest their whole presence on Wikipedia is to ensure this article remains; and the only reference that vaguely cuts it, imo, is Fricke at Rolling Stone – but even that's a bit of a puff piece, really. So all in all, it doesn't look too good(!).
I think an article like this should be subject to the sort of restrictions you've quoted for upcoming films, yes. I don't mean to sound like a snob (I mostly work on only Beatles-related articles), but I don't see this Umphrey's McGee album as having "the coverage showing notable per the notability guidelines". I hasten to add that's partly because of the lack of quality references, and it's definitely because of the apparent COI/promotional tone.
I was trying to think of similar pre-release examples … The only one that comes to mind is George Harrison's Early Takes compilation from 2012. I thought that article was slightly premature (begun on 27 March, before a 1 May release date). On the other hand, the tone there was absolutely correct, and (not that the text mentioned it yet) the disc had certainly gained notability, since the music was from the Abbey Road vaults and/or Harrison's near-legendary personal archive; it had featured in Scorsese's much-discussed documentary film; and the CD had already appeared as a bonus disc with the UK-only Deluxe Edition DVD set in November 2011. JG66 (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again JG66. Just for reference, technically the article was prodded for deletion not nominated for deletion. If it had been an AfD notice that was removed, then I would've simply re-added it. But, since it has been already prodded once, it cannot be prodded again per WP:DEPROD. Do you have any suggestions on how to best proceed from here? I've added some cleanup tags to the article, but notability is not something usually obtained through editing, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Marchjuly, I've just given the piece a quick edit. Your cleanup tags had already been removed, by the way. I think the "news release" issue is now sorted, but the concerns re COI and (definitely) notability still remain, so I've reinstated tags for those two.
Thanks for that clarification: prod, rather than nomination. And no, notability is not something usually obtained through editing – but the editor simply needs to do some research to establish notability, I'd imagine. If Rolling Stone has highlighted this imminent release, who else out there has? (Excluding the band's site and iTunes.) Incidentally, I've added refimprove tags at two other articles related to Umphrey's McGee – Similar Skin and Brendan Bayliss – and the band article has long carried the same tag. Perhaps we should add something at Talk:The London Sessions to signpost the discussion that's gone on here. Strikes me that no one at the album article will be aware of this otherwise. JG66 (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I saw that your re-added two of the tags that were removed. I was going to do that, but you got their first. For reference, I started a discussion at Talk:The London Session#Issues related to what we have discussed here. I think we should probably continue the discussion there for here on, I'm just not exactly sure how to merge this talk into that talk. I also think it my be a good idea to post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and let them know about the article talk page discussion. Perhaps other editors might see things differently and have suggestions on what should be done. The other option is to Afd it and see what comes from the discussion, but not sure about WP:BEFORE. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems there's been some server lag where I am. I've just added something at the album talk page referring to our discussion here. Not sure if AfD is required – not sure it's isn't, either. I think the important thing is to keep those tags on the article. But yes, let's keep anything and everything else for Talk:The London Session. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Rockfreaks

I recently tried adding this site ([10]) as a source to an article, only for the source to be challenged by another editor. This post in the archives ([11]) gives some indication that it might be a reliable source. Any thoughts? Kokoro20 (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It has been added a few times to the article. The website's tagline, "Music From A Fan's Point Of View", is what gave me pause, but http://www.rockfreaks.net/about settled it. They claim to be the "largest online magazine in Denmark - operating since 2003 - a magazine fully owned and run by people whose sole passion is music" and http://www.rockfreaks.net/about/staff doesn't support that it's a professional site. I'll let other editors comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess the question is how do we define professional?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Please elaborate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Simply from a quick skim of the site's album reviews, where one can link from an author's initials to their role at rockfreaks, I'd say it looks good. Certainly, there are sources we do accept currently that provide less in the way of detail/validity about their staff. I don't know anything about the site, such as the degree to which it's recognised, I admit. Also, I think the tagline "Music From A Fan's Point Of View" is pretty innocuous – it's simply aiming for an audience (as so many online review sites are) that would find the likes of Rolling Stone, Uncut and Mojo too old school and stuffy, no? JG66 (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
That seems to make sense. Anyone else have any input? Kokoro20 (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Kid A

I have nominated Kid A 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. DrKiernan (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source for album reviews outside of music magazines/newspapers

User:Wolpat and I have been having a (civilized) discussion at my talk page as to what constitutes a "reliable source" with regards to album reviews. He added one from Trucking magazine to The Take Off and Landing of Everything, which I reverted on the grounds that Trucking would probably not be considered a reliable source for album reviews. He argues that Trucking is an established magazine and that the album reviewer is a paid staff member (both of which are correct), and therefore the review is valid. The reception section of the album article style guide states that reviews from any "print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff" may be used, under which Trucking would qualify as a valid source.

I still think that album reviews should come from music magazines and internationally recognised newpapers, otherwise you could include reviews from the likes of Hello!, but I can see his point. What is the view of other editors on this matter? Richard3120 (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in adding Trucking's review per se. If the source is notable and reliable, its reviews will be worth adding. However, The Take Off and Landing of Everything#Reception is already long enough, and I guess adding non-specialized sources to a already long list might be pointless. If there weren't other good reviews available, even Trucking would be a welcome addition, though. Once I was prevented from adding a review by Rolling Stone Brazil to Mylo Xyloto on the basis that the reception section was already too long. And we are certainly talking about a major source for music. Victão Lopes Fala! 01:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Wolpat's view is that it would provide some balance, as all the other reviews are generally positive, and the Trucking review is decidedly negative. I don't have a problem with adding a negative review per se either – I got irritated when somebody edited out a negative part of a review I included on Dubnobasswithmyheadman... I don't believe it should be up to Wikipedia editors to "sanitize" reviews just because we don't agree with them. I was just wondering if there was any consensus as to how far non-specialist sources were accepted in the reception section. Richard3120 (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Providing different points of view is a good reason for adding a non-specialist review. On the other hand, reception sections should be used to summarize the general critical impression, we don't need to give room for every opinion available. If the Trucking review is the only available negative review by a reliable source, then it might just not be worth adding at all, since it is an isolated, non-specialist, almost irrelevant opinion. Victão Lopes Fala! 01:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The London Session for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The London Session is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The London Session until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Live at Budokan: Black Night

Live at Budokan: Black Night, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. It has gone 15 days (half its discussion period) with no discussion, and while discussion is not required to merge, I thought people may not have realized it was happening, so I thought I'd notify relevant pages (related article talk pages; relevant Wikiprojects) in the interest of drumming up discussion. Thank you. Purplewowies (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

AllMusic online and print

AllMusic was the subject of a WP:MUSIC discussion, but led me to wonder about the following: Under WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, I noticed that AllMusic is listed under "Online only," while the related (or at least previously-related) All Music Guide books aren't listed anywhere on the page. (In fact, there isn't any listing of any books; perhaps it would be too exhaustive?) Shouldn't/couldn't AllMusic be listed under "Online and print?"

I personally wish we'd stop splitting the two, as it really has no bearing on...anything. It really ought to be just one list. I've asked, and there's consensus to do it...but it seems like a big undertaking, so I don't think anyone's felt like taking it on... Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Table format suggestion

I've been thinking of re-formatting the tables for the list of reliable sources to something that was more formal and simpler, this is what I conjured up:

Extended content

Online and print

Publication Primary focus Reliability Rating system Country Website Back issue
Reports Reviews
Alternative Press Rock Yes Yes 5-star scale: US altpress.com altpress.com/magazine/
Bach Baroque, Bach compositions Yes No — US bw.edu —
Billboard Popular music Yes Yes 100-point scale: 83/100α US billboard.com billboard.com/magazine-archive
Notes
  • ^α =Older (between the early 1970s and mid 2000s): various categories such as "Spotlight", "Recommended", "Pick", "Four Star", "Critics' Choice" and "Vital Reissue", as defined in the reviews key
    Newer: Scores out of 100. (As of November 2014, magazine archive contains 129 pages of reviews, with links to 10 reviews per page, dating back to 2008.)

Online only

Publication Primary focus Reliability Rating system Country Website Notes
Reports Reviews
AbsolutePunk Alternative, indie, rock No Yes Percentage scale: 93% US absolutepunk.net Only use staff reviews.
BBC Music All genres Yes Yes — UK bbc.co.uk/music Do not use mirrors of Wikipedia.
Roots Archives Popular music Yes No — US roots-archives.com A discography database.
UnderTheGunReview Popular music Unreliable US underthegunreview.net View discussion here: [12]

I made the table more compact and also moved any large buts of info into a notes section underneath each one. Could this be implemented into the article? Or does it need improvement? SilentDan (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks good. Is there a "print only" group? Some older publications fit that bill. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not eliminate those distinctions entirely and just make it one list, as was proposed in the section immediately above this one? As for the new table format, I for one approve.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I say, if someone's going through the trouble of redoing the list, please combine it into one big list. I like the new layout, though, do we really have that many sources where we only allow their reviews, not their general articles, or vice versa? Seems like most would be "both" or "neither" (if you were reworking the unreliable source section too.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, missed this: I do take some issue with the "Reliability" part of the table, at least the way that it's used. It's not that Bach is unreliable for reviews, but that it doesn't contain them. It would be good if there was a way to distinguish between the types of journalism that a source does, and whether the source is reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, how about this one then, not sure how to make the "Unreliable" box greyed out though, may need help on that - SilentDan (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. You could just use the grey n/a template you used already elsewhere for scenarios where they don't do reviews to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
Publication Format Primary focus Application Rating system Country Website Back issue Notes
Online Print Reports Reviews
AbsolutePunk Yes No Alternative, indie, rock No Yes Percentage scale: 93% United States absolutepunk.net — Only use staff reviews.
Alternative Press Yes Yes Metal, rock Yes Yes 5-star scale: United States altpress.com altpress.com/magazine/ —
Bach Yes Yes Baroque, bach compositions Yes No — United States bw.edu — —
BBC Music Yes No All Genres Yes Yes No formal system United Kingdom bbc.co.uk/music — Do not use mirrors of Wikipedia.
Billboard Yes Yes All Genres Yes Yes 100-point scale: 83/100 United States billboard.com billboard.com/magazine-archive —
Roots Archives Yes No All genres Yes No — United States roots-archives.com — A discography database.
UnderTheGunReview Yes No All genres Unreliable Origin underthegunreview.net — Reliability discussion: [13]
Publisher {yes}/{No} {yes}/{No} Music genres/scenes {yes}/{No} {yes}/{No} Rating system detail Origin example.com If applicable Notes regarding publication
Awesome! Will format the article into this style when I have more time, either tomorrow or the day after most likely. SilentDan (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice work! — sparklism hey! 06:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Grammy Award for Album of the Year

Without any discussion Robsinden has reformatted the network of templates associated with Template:Grammy Award for Album of the Year to merge into this main template. Previously there were templates that included all the winners of the award by decade. See this former 2010s version. It seems that the effort to consolidate the templates has eliminated many of the award winners from the templates. In terms of navigation (the reason to have the templates) these award winners were probably served well by the prior navigational system of templates. Advice welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Those previous templates were an abomination, and were far too complicated and fragmented to aid navigation. The example you give is not recognisable as a navbox, it's part of a table on award winners. These templates were trying to replicate articles, which is obviously a function best left to an article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Much better now. Thank you, Rob. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The new version looks better, the previous ones contained too many unnecessary details, such as all the producers and every band/featured member. Victão Lopes Fala! 06:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"Inoculator"

The usage and primary topic of Inoculator is under discussion, see talk:Inoculator -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Men of Honor (album) or Men of Honor (Adrenaline Mob album)?

What do you guys think of this move? Currently we've got no other articles on albums named Men of Honor. Albums cited in the edit summary are barely mentioned at their main pages. Should other "Blablabla (album)" articles be moved as well, provided we find mentions of similarly named albums by other artists? Victão Lopes Fala! 06:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

No need for the band name in the article for DAB purposes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted it. No other albums with this title have an article. If another album called Men of Honor by another artist is deemed notable enough for an article, and once the article exists, then we can diambiguate, but we don't need to pre-empt it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Men of Honor (soundtrack) is a 2000 album mentioned in film article. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of RockSins

Firts of all, apologies for the amount of time it's taking to re-format the article's tables, but i've been away for a few days and it's going to take a while regardless, here's my progress: [14]

Second of all, since I still have no idea how to simply identify a reliable source, can someone tell me if the website Rock Sins is reliable or not? Here's the link to their "About Us" page: [15]

Apologies for any inconvenience, just that while I was looking for reviews for albums this band popped up on Google News, no idea if that means anything to you but yeah I have no idea. Thank you for your time. SilentDan (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I would argue they're not a source. They're not professional music journalists, they're "a bunch of guys and gals who love metal and rock music." Hobbyists. The fact that only three of the "staff" there have addresses at the site is a further clue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, will add this as a unreliable source to the list. SilentDan (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ghosts I–IV FAR

I have nominated Ghosts I–IV 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. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This has been placed on hold, as the "discuss on talk page first" part was accidentally skipped. Input would still be welcome on the article talk page though, of course. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem with {{Certification Cite Ref}}

Per the discussion at WP:VE/F#Citation numbers messing up, this template is currently incompatible with VisualEditor. Given all the programming effort being made to develop VE, and the likelihood that VE will become the preferred editing choice within a couple of years, it would be ideal if this incompatibility could be fixed. And, apparently, that can't be done on the VE side. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_50&oldid=1077440417"