ThedancingMOONpolice (talk | contribs) →QRO Magazine: new section |
Link because this is at a subpage |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 287: | Line 287: | ||
I am wondering if [https://qromag.com this website] is considered reliable or not. [https://www.qromag.com/about_us/staff/staff_list/ This is their staff list], the date says 2007 but it is different from earlier versions of the page.[https://web.archive.org/web/20070302234230/http://www.qromag.com/section/Staff/][https://web.archive.org/web/20071226170859/https://www.qromag.com/category/Staff/] Most of the site's content as of right now (at least the album/track reviews) is written by associate editor Ted Chase, though [https://web.archive.org/web/20070531210552/http://www.qromag.com:80/category/Album_Reviews/ this wasn't the case originally]. Occasionally, there are other people who write instead.[https://www.qromag.com/author/dmiller/][https://www.qromag.com/author/acruz/][https://www.qromag.com/author/minfanger/][https://www.qromag.com/author/gclowes/] [https://www.goldminemag.com/articles/goldmine-premieres-new-song-courtesy-tier It also looks like it was cited once by ''Goldmine'']. Any thoughts? |
I am wondering if [https://qromag.com this website] is considered reliable or not. [https://www.qromag.com/about_us/staff/staff_list/ This is their staff list], the date says 2007 but it is different from earlier versions of the page.[https://web.archive.org/web/20070302234230/http://www.qromag.com/section/Staff/][https://web.archive.org/web/20071226170859/https://www.qromag.com/category/Staff/] Most of the site's content as of right now (at least the album/track reviews) is written by associate editor Ted Chase, though [https://web.archive.org/web/20070531210552/http://www.qromag.com:80/category/Album_Reviews/ this wasn't the case originally]. Occasionally, there are other people who write instead.[https://www.qromag.com/author/dmiller/][https://www.qromag.com/author/acruz/][https://www.qromag.com/author/minfanger/][https://www.qromag.com/author/gclowes/] [https://www.goldminemag.com/articles/goldmine-premieres-new-song-courtesy-tier It also looks like it was cited once by ''Goldmine'']. Any thoughts? |
||
[[User:ThedancingMOONpolice|ThedancingMOONpolice]] ([[User talk:ThedancingMOONpolice|talk]]) 07:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC) |
[[User:ThedancingMOONpolice|ThedancingMOONpolice]] ([[User talk:ThedancingMOONpolice|talk]]) 07:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
== The Music Network == |
|||
Following comments [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs&diff=972948200&oldid=972907074 here] and at [[Talk:Sour Candy (Lady Gaga and Blackpink song)#Sour Candy - a single?]], I propose formally adding this publication to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Unreliable sources]]. Any objections? At the very least, it's subpar for release dates, and certainly not as authoritative as ARIA or even Noise11 for Australia-related music matters. [[User:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b>]] ([[User talk:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">talk</b>]] / [[Special:Contributions/SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">edits</b>]]) 14:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:11, 2 September 2020
Albums Project‑class | |||||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Studio parameter of the album's infobox (Template:Infobox album#studio)
Is the studio parameter of the album's infobox Wikipedia definition only for recording studios where a record was recorded, and not where it was overdubbed and/or mixed? "If the album was recorded in a recording studio, enter the name and location." (Template:Infobox album#studio). It does not say to include anything other than a studio in which the album was recorded. The Wikipdia page Audio mixing (recorded music) states "Before the introduction of multitrack recording, all sounds and effects that were to be part of a record were mixed at one time during a live performance. If the recorded mix wasn't satisfactory, or if one musician made a mistake, the selection had to be performed over until the desired balance and performance was obtained. With the introduction of multi-track recording, the production of a modern recording changed into one that generally involves three stages: recording, overdubbing, and mixing." Since the 1970's, record albums have been recorded in three stages: recording, overdubbing, and mixing. It was common practice to record an album in one studio, overdub in another studio and mixed in another. I would argue for the listing of every recording studio that was used in the making of the song or album. Please weigh in here. Joanne.nathan (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not all aspects of a song should be included in an infobox. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE includes "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance ... wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". The WP practice, as reflected in the guidance, is to include the recording studio(s); other facilities where an album may have been overdubbed, mixed, mastered, etc., are for the main body of the article, such as in a "Recording" section, where they can be properly discussed and referenced. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
There may be a conflict of interest here (comment by Binksternet copied from User talk:Joanne.nathan):
Perhaps I can clear this up. Joanne Nathan emailed me on June 29 about my many reversions of User:Uniquenyc who had added Unique Recording Studios in New York to a bunch of song articles but without supporting references. (Joanne and Bobby Nathan were the owners and operators of Unique.) Joanne Nathan registered her username the same day. On July 1, Uniquenyc was renamed Bobby Nathan at Uniquenyc. I described to Joanne by email how WP:SECONDARY sources were greatly preferred on Wikipedia, but primary sources could be used for simple facts. She began to re-add her recording studio to song and album articles, using a combination of secondary and primary sources. I would not classify her as "paid"; instead she has a conflict of interest, but it's not an insurmountable problem. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
copied & added by Ojorojo (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm coming to this late. I would argue that only the main studios where recording and overdubs took place should be listed. Mixing and mastering should not be listed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, added to which editors will start adding the studios where each remastered edition has been carried out... the infobox could start getting lengthy and cluttered. Richard3120 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm coming to this late. I would argue that only the main studios where recording and overdubs took place should be listed. Mixing and mastering should not be listed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Every studio involved in the album should be listed, from tracking to mixing. I draw the line at mastering, and at the other end I would not include songwriting sessions that don't result in recorded material. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Binksternet, all studios from tracking through mixing should be listed. Studios listed need to be verifiable, of course. ~Kvng (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think it should only be studios where recording and overdubbing took place. Until a few years ago, all recording info appeared in the Recording= parameter; then an editor somehow introduced Studio= and it was only a good while later that the issue was discussed and we decided to live with it. (At least, that's the way I remember it.) It's only because of that change that the question even arises now of what "Studio" means in infobox terms – the advice at the template is consistent with a purpose that never changed, at least not formally. In the same way, we have Recorded= for recording dates, but no Mixed= parameter for mixing dates. JG66 (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Binksternet. The thing is even when audio is mixed or dubbed its done in a music studio/recording studio not a mixing studio (there's no such thing as the latter). Mixing suits are often based in recording studios. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
At what point did The Austin Chronicle move from a 4-star scale to a 5-star? Or was it always a 5-star, but older reviews rarely awarded higher than 4? Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- It seems that in the mid-'90s, they used a scale of 5 Hs (HHHHH), and then they moved to a 4-star scale and then a 5-star...anyone know for sure? Caro7200 (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die 2018 edition
Does anyone have a copy of the 2018 edition of 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die? Would like to know the page number David Bowie's Blackstar is on. Thanks! – zmbro (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Headline Planet
I have been under the impression since 2017 that Headline Planet is an unreliable source and should not be used in music articles. I thusly tagged 2 uses of it in the article for Taylor Swift's Folklore album but my tags were removed earlier today and I was told that because their reporting on Apple Music and Spotify info is accurate it stands as a valid reference. But to me this directly contradicts what I was orig told when I first started editing/my seeing other editors remove it as a ref from various articles over the years as per edit histories and talk pages. But a quick wikipedia search just now showed me tons of 2020 music articles repeatedly citing it. I would appreciate some clarification on the matter. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- I believe the source is a reliable one, since it seems to consistently report the correct information about music. --K. Peake 16:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- We assess sources mainly against Wikipedia:Reliable sources. HP claims to have an "editorial team" [1], but almost all of the articles that I looked at were written by the same person (the "Founder, President"... although the series of bikini photo pieces is mostly credited to another name). This makes it at least close to WP:RSSELF. At the same link, HP invites sponsorship, but I don't know if it notifies readers of what content has been paid for. This makes it at least close to WP:SPONSORED. HP also states that it began as "a hobby website", [2]. A lot of the music content looks almost auto-generated – like someone auto-generated text based on chart data and then added a few phrases. Overall, HP looks WP:QUESTIONABLE. EddieHugh (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note also that not only does founder Brian Cantor write almost all the content, Headline Planet is also published by the "Cantortainment Company", making it sound even more WP:RSSELF. Richard3120 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- We assess sources mainly against Wikipedia:Reliable sources. HP claims to have an "editorial team" [1], but almost all of the articles that I looked at were written by the same person (the "Founder, President"... although the series of bikini photo pieces is mostly credited to another name). This makes it at least close to WP:RSSELF. At the same link, HP invites sponsorship, but I don't know if it notifies readers of what content has been paid for. This makes it at least close to WP:SPONSORED. HP also states that it began as "a hobby website", [2]. A lot of the music content looks almost auto-generated – like someone auto-generated text based on chart data and then added a few phrases. Overall, HP looks WP:QUESTIONABLE. EddieHugh (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I treat Headline Planet in music articles the same way I treat messageboards like Neogaf or Resetera in the video game content area - its a good place to find “leads” or “ideas” on things to be added, but it doesn’t meet our RS standards, so I don’t cite it, and don’t add it unless I see it be replicated by reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I do not consider this a reliable source. Every music-related article I have read on there is written by one person, Brian Cantor, and they report on a lot of irrelevant stuff like iTunes Charts and lower rung radio chart positions. If anything from this website is worthy of inclusion, it will have been covered by a more reliable source.—NØ 20:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you everyone for all the replies. I'm going to remove the citations, apply the template again and link back to this discussion for editors who will question it. Perhaps it's time HP was added to the list of unreliable sources to make it clear for all editors going forward? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Seems to be a consensus, and I imagine this may keep coming up otherwise. I support adding it to the unreliable side. Sergecross73 msg me 03:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Any update on if HP is being added to the unreliable sources section? The consensus appears to be that it's unreliable so there doesn't seem to be need for an RFC but I don't want to prematurely take it upon myself to include it in the table so asking first. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Seems to be a consensus, and I imagine this may keep coming up otherwise. I support adding it to the unreliable side. Sergecross73 msg me 03:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you everyone for all the replies. I'm going to remove the citations, apply the template again and link back to this discussion for editors who will question it. Perhaps it's time HP was added to the list of unreliable sources to make it clear for all editors going forward? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @AshMusique: in this discussion, since his edits was in the diffs. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, TheAmazingPeanuts, I wasn't aware of this discussion. I've always verified content sourced from HeadlinePlanet back to its original source, i.e the actual Spotify/Apple Music chart, and the content has always proven to be factual. Thus, my reasoning for restoring the ref. I usually, but very rarely, cite it as placeholder content, with regards to streaming data, until charts such as the Billboard Hot 100 update. But as correct as their articles may be, I understand how that's not a credible way of going about sourcing, as HP's content is highly self-published and anyone can practically create the content that they do. With that said, I'm not opposed to adding it to unreliable sources. AshMusique (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I've started a discussion about the above album at Talk:Kylie_Minogue#Too_early_for_Disco_album ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
MTV testi e canzoni
I have been using this as a reference, but I am not sure if it is a reliable source so thought I'd check here to see how others feel about the reliability? --K. Peake 05:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- What are you using it for, if I may ask? I mean, it's just the lyrics from a song. Richard3120 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Richard3120 I was using it to name writers of a song, is that fine? --K. Peake 14:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I would have thought it better to cite the label of the record itself, if necessary – I can see this at Discogs, and it lists three writers, not two. Not sure how notable this group or record is, though. Richard3120 (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Richard3120 This source is actually being used in relevance to a sample on the track "Follow God", though I may find something else instead now. --K. Peake 15:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I understand now – I'm guessing Tidal or ASCAP/BMI don't have credits for the sample? If not I'd cite the label for now and then wait for the album to see what credits they have. Richard3120 (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Richard3120 This source is actually being used in relevance to a sample on the track "Follow God", though I may find something else instead now. --K. Peake 15:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I would have thought it better to cite the label of the record itself, if necessary – I can see this at Discogs, and it lists three writers, not two. Not sure how notable this group or record is, though. Richard3120 (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Richard3120 I was using it to name writers of a song, is that fine? --K. Peake 14:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Unreleased albums and cover art
@ILIL:, @Gentlecollapse6:, who I saw both have some experience with this, and anyone else who can comment:
I've been working on Love for Sale (Bilal album) and am thinking of cover options for the infobox, but am uncertain about the fair-use implications and general appropriateness. The image that appears most often in association with this album on blogs and discographical sites is this one (Genius.com is among the more reputable sites), although there is no commentary on this - it could be a piece of fan-made art that simply became popular by association with the album's spread online. This interview by Albumism mentioning the album uses that image in a collage of other albums' official covers, so perhaps that counts as some kind of validation? Otherwise, there is no reliable commentary on the planned or leaked album's cover art like there is at Smile (Beach Boys album). A similar article, Camille (album), uses a limited LP copy as the cover, so I've also considered using one of these sleeves of a promotional LP ([3], [4]). isento (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
YouTube links in infoboxes
Hi. I've raised the question of using YouTube links in soundtrack infoboxes for films at the Film WikiProject. Any input of their use or not would be appreciated here. BOVINEBOY2008 20:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Seeking feedback on Category:Leaked albums
This was recently created. Seems a little trivial to me since it's fairly common for albums to leak and this was really only a thing for maybe a decade in the early 21st-century. Should we have this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn’t seem like it would generally be a WP:DEFINING trait. And I think people would generally violate WP:LEAK with it too. I’m against it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wholeheartedly agree. I started a discussion on the category page to address these same concerns. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- The guidance at WP:LEAK merely addresses whether an article should mention the date of an album leaking. The guidance doesn't apply here and it is very unlikely to be "violated" if you apply it here anyway. If a leak is verifiable to reliable sources, then it has more than likely received coverage for how an artist or label responded to it. For historical examples, see Pitchfork's "A History of Digital Album Leaks (1993-2015)" or "Inside album leaks: how do they happen, how do we stop them, and do they even matter?" by Factmag. For a contemporary example, "Dua Lipa moves album release forward after it leaks online" (BBC) and "Dua Lipa bursts into tears as she moves her album release forward after it leaks online" (The Sun). For a phenomenon that has shaped the professional habits of prominent recording artists ([5], [6], [7]), I would say it's a pretty notable trait to consider. isento (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- No one is arguing that there aren’t any notable leaks. The point, as I understood it, was that if the category was filled out correctly, virtually every non-indie album from 2000 to 2015 would have the category. Leaks were extremely common in the post-digital but pre-streaming music era. And then I feared that, if it was applied accurately like that, it would start leading to inclusion in articles, which would be LEAK violations. Sergecross73 msg me 19:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- The guidance at WP:LEAK merely addresses whether an article should mention the date of an album leaking. The guidance doesn't apply here and it is very unlikely to be "violated" if you apply it here anyway. If a leak is verifiable to reliable sources, then it has more than likely received coverage for how an artist or label responded to it. For historical examples, see Pitchfork's "A History of Digital Album Leaks (1993-2015)" or "Inside album leaks: how do they happen, how do we stop them, and do they even matter?" by Factmag. For a contemporary example, "Dua Lipa moves album release forward after it leaks online" (BBC) and "Dua Lipa bursts into tears as she moves her album release forward after it leaks online" (The Sun). For a phenomenon that has shaped the professional habits of prominent recording artists ([5], [6], [7]), I would say it's a pretty notable trait to consider. isento (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Vents magazine
Is vents magazine a reliable source for music articles? Here is the source that leads to the website: [8] The Ultimate Boss (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, on their "About Us" page, they say, not too reassuringly,
"Vents Magazine is the premier online publication for music news, entertainment, movies, and other articles online. Established in 2009, and run by a team of dedicated volunteers who love music. We also run a digital magazine, and Frame by Sound Festival."
- so they're not only an online publication, they also run a digital magazine. Gosh! So many irons in the fire! And call me picky, but the middle sentence isn't even a sentence. (Besides which: "the premier"?? Please.)
- I can't tell how many volunteers in their "team", or who they are, or their qualifications. But the current issue appears to consist entirely of about 25 interviews with identical patterns. ("Hi, X, and welcome to Vents! How have you been?") So, I guess it'd be reliable for verifying that "artist X told an interviewer from Vents that..."
- I don't see any other content. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Is The Daily Shuffle a reliable source
Is The Daily Shuffle a reliable source? Here is the link: [9]. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- The latest version of their digital mag (Issue #24 July 2020) looks much more professional than Vents above; much better layout and photos. However, it also consists almost exclusively of interviews, every one of them by the editor-in-chief.
- For musical content on their site I looked at this and this, but can't say there's much sorting of details by TDS beyond reformatting the PR offerings from the artists/agents. I don't know The Daily Shuffle otherwise. Sorry if that's not much help. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Folklore and other Album Writer Credits and References Being Omitted
Hello, Everyone.
I'm writing to seek a consensus on the way writers are being unfairly treated in Album articles. I will post the following conversation to be transparent and provide a foundation to the issue and discussion.
From the Folklore Album talk page ( ), Prose072 (talk)
"== William Bowery and other writers (Credits) ==
(removed for clarity, SEE talk page in link provided above)
Please try again
This is massive and overwhelming. Please stop and try again, in a far more concise manner. You’re unlikely to get a consensus when you present it like this. Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Its worth noting that ASCAP often lists credits for alternative, unreleased and remixed versions of songs too. For example, "Smile (Katy Perry Song)" isn't on Ascap but its remix featuring Diddy is even though that hasn't been released. Its entirely plausible that different versions of songs exist. The best thing to do is to source from the album booklet and then if other reliable sources like Billboard where to report afterwards or the artist acknowledges the booklet was wrong then to credit others. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Actually both versions are on ASCAP. Smile. Although there is a legal obligation to credit authors on publications, it is not always adhered to on marketing material (i.e. album booklets). Whereas there is a strong argument that who gets the money is nearly always better policed. Yes, I'd be straight onto ASCAP/BMI or my PRO to make sure I get any royalty checks due to me. NB No objections to both sources being added and discrepancies pointed out. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- The issue is that on Folklore, Prose072 wants the writers and producers to be listed in the Credits section, not the Track Listing section. They also have pointed out that the producers are already in both sections, which is true. The producers (Dessner and Antonoff) are already in the Credits section because they contributed to the songs as musicians, as well as being producers. Rfl0216 (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: What @Rfl0216: said. I posted the entire conversation except the entry made this morning concerning the term, "record producers" as defined by Wiki for transparency. Rfl0216 obviously agrees with the defined meaning of a "producer" since they agreed, as "true", that producers are more specifically credited in the credit section over the writers. And, it is our duty to ensure that proper reference and credit is provided to all parties. And because the "track listing" section does not allow *more specifics* to referenced on writers. Therefore, writers should also be properly listed within the "credits" section like producers so that "more specifics" can be included concerning writing credits like producing credits. I'm seeking a consensus on the issue(s) rather than doing it without a discussion that would likely upset many and present the wrong tone. Reasoning in example, colleges are not allowing citations in papers from Wiki because of "The sources still all seem to be limited to news stories and similar. Nick-D (talk) 8:14 pm, 8 August 2020, last Saturday (4 days ago) (UTC−5) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/1989_(Taylor_Swift_album)/archive2)" and other crediting reasons within articles since they become opinion based or are not properly or vaguely credited. And we're obligated to follow, at minimum, a standard similar to the "Credit lines required by license Edit Creative Commons Edit CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses Edit According to Creative Commons CC BY and CC BY-SA licenses (https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Credit_line). While a simple credit has been made for the writers in "track listing", no specifics and can be made like the producers are afforded more specifics in the "credits section". And the writers should also be properly credited in the Credits section so that "more specifics" for crediting can be attached and referenced that are pertinent to the album, songs written, and the article instead of a simple track list credit without any specifics or references to the credit. Prose072 (talk)
- Yes, I see what you did, and that’s precisely why I’m saying you should do it over. You should not be copy/pasting massive walls of text of previously had discussions. You should provide links (WP:DIFs) to aid in readibility. I mean, do whatever you want, but I’ve been involved in enough discussions over the years to know that giant walls of texts generally scare most people from participating, and then no WP:CONSENSUS is found as a result. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- I do understand @Sergecross73: because the issues get off topic and cannot be narrowed down. As for the issue now, should I clarify to be more specific or was the previous statement enough to understand the topic of discussion? Prose072 (talk)
- @Prose072: What you need to do is get to the point quickly, don’t quote anyone, and make it clear and concise so we all can follow. From personal experiences, long messages aren’t fun to read, and the issue doesn’t end up getting resolved because everyone gets too confused. Please:
- Make it to the point, and only use quotes or sources when needed only
- Don’t go off topic
- Make it comprehensive, and take time to read it in 3rd person so you can understand what we feel
- Don't overuse the bold or italics functions, it makes it harder and harder to comprehend
- @Prose072: What you need to do is get to the point quickly, don’t quote anyone, and make it clear and concise so we all can follow. From personal experiences, long messages aren’t fun to read, and the issue doesn’t end up getting resolved because everyone gets too confused. Please:
- Please clarify what you mean, concisely, without getting off topic. Thanks! Doggy54321 (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Prose072: Just wanted to point out when you say
Rfl0216 obviously agrees with the defined meaning of a "producer" since they agreed, as "true", that producers are more specifically credited in the credit section over the writers
that I was not clear enough in my earlier statement. I meant to state that the producers (Antonoff and Dessner) are in the Credits section specifically for their work on the songs as musicians -- literally for the instruments they play on the songs -- not for their work as producers. Rfl0216 (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Rfl0216: Exactly what you just said, again, (definition posted, here, below, again, for meaning and clarification), "I meant to state that the producers (Antonoff and Dessner) are in the Credits section specifically for their work on the songs as musicians -- literally for the instruments they play on the songs -- not for their work as producers(["It's the same, See Below, "The producer may ... play instruments"])." because the definition is clear, they are the same,
"A record producer or music producer was once the overseer or operator of a musical act's sound recording and its refinement—roles now typically an audio engineer's—whereas today's record producers, directing or creating the musical sound and song structure, are mainly music composers who arrange the vocal and instrumental contributions while often coaching the musical act.[1][2] (The executive producer instead enables the project by arranging its financing and business partnerships.)
The producer may gather musical ideas or samples, help improve the song's lyrics or instrumentation, hire session musicians, play instruments, cowrite, or even publicly appear by name in the recording. Sometimes doubling as the engineer, the producer may supervise the entire process of creating a finished recording: preproduction, recording, mixing, and perhaps even mastering. For some projects, the producer also chooses all of the recording artists.[3] Music producers are likened to film directors.[2][3]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_producer
- The definition is clear, "The producer may ... play instruments". And the issue to resolve is clear, "The producers in the track listing are limited credits. And the writers are the same. However, in the Credits section, it allows for the credits to be more specific and referenced for the producer and writers." Prose072 (talk)
- Also, none of the listed producers in the track listing are "executive producers" except Swift, and she has been omitted from an executive producer credits there and in credits section for all songs (UMG is also an executive producer like Swift, not "record producer" (Antonoff, Swift, and Dessner). There's a difference that can be more specifically detailed in the Credits section. Same applies to writers (Credit specifics).
De-linking "rock," "singer-songwriter"?
This guy has been delinking these terms from articles, using script-assisted MOS fixes, under the presumption that "rock" is an everyday word. I've noticed this before, but this at Love for Sale (Bilal album) started an edit war today. While "singer-songwriter" is debatable, surely "rock" should remain linked as any other genre? isento (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Isento: I think singer-songwriter are common words and should not be linked, while rock on the other hand is a genre. I think rock should be linked then singer-songwriter. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah Isento I agree with TheAmazingPeanuts. The genre should be linked, even the most common ones, but not singer-songwriter. Robvanvee 16:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- "Rock" should definitely be linked in the infobox – it's inconceivable that it wouldn't be. I also think the term should be liked if it's relevant to discussion of an album or song's musical styles in the main body (because of the context, and consistent with any other styles that might be mentioned). I wouldn't link something as common as "rock" in, say, an introduction to the album/song artist – as in "Beggars Banquet is an album by the English rock band the Rolling Stones". In that context, words like rock (and band) aren't demanding attention or elaboration so that the reader can understand the point being made. Similarly, I wouldn't link "singer-songwriter" (or "producer", or "recording studio") unless the term is especially pertinent; for example, if there's discussion of the artist moving out of their singer-songwriter phase and into a period characterised by studio experimentation and sound exploration. In those instances, the common term is contextually significant, and a link would seem appropriate. I can't say I've come across examples like this too often, but I think that's how I'd approach it in practice. JG66 (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The Reliability of CelebMix
I have noticed recently that a lot of articles (particularly GA ones) have been using CelebMix as a source. Has there been a consensus as to whether or not it is actually considered reliable for use on Wikipedia? I have read previous discussions talking about it (mainly this and this), and most users seem to be against using the website, but it has not stopped others from using it: [10]. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- As noted in the second discussion, CelebMix is largely written by unpaid volunteers, and it does say that "CelebMix has strict editorial standards and all content is reviewed and verified by a team of trained entertainment journalists before publication" [11]. The problem is, I can't see anywhere who this team of trained journalists and editorial staff might be. Richard3120 (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- I know the guy that founded CelebMix (I was once friends with him many moons ago) and I wouldn't really consider it a reliable source. Here's an early incarnation of the site before it was rebranded as CelebMix. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- I do belive [12] says it all "CelebMix is maintained by young people, for young people. In essence, Celebmix is a sandbox for aspiring journalists. All information we post is (to the best of our knowledge) accurate and correct at time of publication, and we make efforts to ensure the information we publish is kept up-to-date." MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- I know the guy that founded CelebMix (I was once friends with him many moons ago) and I wouldn't really consider it a reliable source. Here's an early incarnation of the site before it was rebranded as CelebMix. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Tracklists: how much is too much?
My question actually refers to a single, not an album, but I thought I'd ask here anyway.
Check out the article for Born Slippy .NUXX. It has extensive tracklist information, documenting apparently every tracklist for every version of this single released. This strikes me as a bit excessive and means the article mostly contains different configurations of essentially identical track titles. I'm wondering if it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Any thoughts? Popcornfud (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I’m not aware of any stances on it either way. I never add any of that to the song articles I create, because I think it’s pointless. But I dont usually stop people if they add them to articles either. It kind of reminds me of the debates WP:VG had about having the Japanese names in the articles. The info’s not wrong...but it really benefits few readers. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's a lot of unnecessary detail that doesn't add to understanding the song. Since the track listings take up a large part of the article (half or more?), there's also an undue weight-type issue. It could be reduced to a few sentences, which would make the article more readable and balanced. Unfortunately, the project page "If the song is a single include track listings for the single's different formats" is too open ended. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. I've removed it from the article. Popcornfud (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's a lot of unnecessary detail that doesn't add to understanding the song. Since the track listings take up a large part of the article (half or more?), there's also an undue weight-type issue. It could be reduced to a few sentences, which would make the article more readable and balanced. Unfortunately, the project page "If the song is a single include track listings for the single's different formats" is too open ended. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Multiple infobox chronologies
Quick question here. I’m all for the single or album chronologies in infoboxes. They help the reader navigate through an artists releases in order. Use them a lot. But it’s come to my attention that some artists use multiple ones. For example, it came up with Slipknot (band). If you check an album of theirs, let’s say, All Hope Is Gone. There’s both a “release chronology” and a “studio album chronology”. Is...that really necessary? Strikes me as overkill. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- This "studio album chronology" was added recently in a lot of articles. Madonna's releases for many years only have one chronology for each of singles, albums, and video releases, but now that studio chronology was added too. I personally don't really see the necessity of this extra chronology. After all, we have the artist template to see which albums are studio/live/compilation, etc. Bluesatellite (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can see having one for singles and one for album type releases, because there’s no overlap. But having one that only includes studio albums, and one that contains compilations, live albums, and the studio albums concurrently running on the same infoboxes feels redundant. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
You need extra chronology if there is a release in between two studio album releases. Take Taylor Swift as an example. If you look at Lover (album) (2019), there is a studio album chronology, and an extra chronology. This extra chronology is needed because of the release of her compilation album and one of her live albums. But if you look at 1989 (Taylor Swift album), we can clearly see one chronology because the chronology only included studio albums (Red [2012] and Reputation [2017]). Hope this clears things up as to why extra chronology is needed! Doggy54321 (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, no, all you did was describe what they are, which I already understood. I wasn’t saying they were exactly the same, I was saying that they’re too redundant and unnecessary to have going concurrently. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, as discussed a year or so ago at WT:Songs, I think we should ditch chronologies altogether. Having them in the first place invites this sort of issue. Back then, I'd raised the point about how disruptive it becomes when several artists collaborate on a cover version of a song, as late in the song article we end up with an enormous infobox that can drop well down into subsequent sections, even references, because of all the individual artists' singles chronologies.
- If Taylor happens to record a collaborative album following and/or preceding a compilation or live album, or if it applies to both/all artists, the effect would just snowball. And, as stated at that earlier discussion, these chronologies are represented in the foot-of-page artist navboxes anyway. None of the other details in the infobox are, which ensures we're not just repeating information. It's as if release chronologies are so important, they're allowed to exist totally free from the scrutiny we otherwise apply. Also, plenty of other Wikipedia projects avoid chronologies – eg, film articles don't have them, no matter how notable the directors' and lead actors' career trajectories might be. JG66 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I support JG66's suggestion of removing all chronologies. They're more trouble than they're worth. We could help readers by having one wikilink to the relevant discography in the infobox instead of lots of clutter to scroll through. EddieHugh (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ugh, this was precisely while I prefaced this with how I felt they generally worked well. I’m strongly against this. They definitely have a function, I just don’t think we should be doubling up on multiple ones in the same user box. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: so are you saying that there should be one chronology, including everything, or just studio album chronology? Doggy54321 (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'd side with Serge here on the original proposal, I don't see the need for both a studio albums chronology and an overall release chronology. You might need to keep the extra chronology for something like the Beatles albums, considering how much the early albums vary between the UK and US, not just in track listing, but also in titles. I think there will be a lot of complaints from casual readers and editors if the chronologies were dispensed with altogether, though. I'd rather get rid of those album track listing templates on song articles first... Richard3120 (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Richard3120 agreed. I’m sure there will be weird scenarios like the Beatles or collaborative albums, but they’re comparatively few and far between, and can generally be figured out with some discussion and creative thinking.
- Doggy54321 Personally, I feel like linking between major studio albums is better - if you’re reading about the trajectory and events as they occur with an artist, I feel like reading between studio albums is more helpful than seeing that the artist released an inconsequential greatest hits rehash in between. But it seems like most commonly you see it where people include compilations/greatest hits/live albums etc, so I generally don’t fight it if people change it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'd side with Serge here on the original proposal, I don't see the need for both a studio albums chronology and an overall release chronology. You might need to keep the extra chronology for something like the Beatles albums, considering how much the early albums vary between the UK and US, not just in track listing, but also in titles. I think there will be a lot of complaints from casual readers and editors if the chronologies were dispensed with altogether, though. I'd rather get rid of those album track listing templates on song articles first... Richard3120 (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: so are you saying that there should be one chronology, including everything, or just studio album chronology? Doggy54321 (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ugh, this was precisely while I prefaced this with how I felt they generally worked well. I’m strongly against this. They definitely have a function, I just don’t think we should be doubling up on multiple ones in the same user box. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I support JG66's suggestion of removing all chronologies. They're more trouble than they're worth. We could help readers by having one wikilink to the relevant discography in the infobox instead of lots of clutter to scroll through. EddieHugh (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly find navigating between albums via the infobox chronology very easy. I think they should include all EPs/album types. Where that page doesn't exist it should link to the artist's discography. If people don't want that, then i'd support their removal all together. We could always say something like if a project is a collaboration between more than 3 artists, chronologies shouldn't be used in the infobox? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- And for the record, I’m totally fine with using all releases. I’d much prefer an “use one - an all releases one” consensus than a “remove all” consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 21:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Serge, especially re: the Slipknot example. Not necessary. Caro7200 (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I fully agree with EddieHugh's comment on how chronologies are "more trouble than they're worth", and support removing them altogether like that user and JG66 do as those are needless clutter. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that infoboxes are supposed to "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)". Immediate preceeding/succeeding albums don't tend to be key facts relevant to a specific album, and even when they are, we're better off discussing them within prose. However, if we use any chronology for albums, then I definitely prefer one general release chronology. Less clutter that way. Having both this and a studio album chronology is overkill as Sergecross73 writes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I honestly think chronologies are helpful. I like being able to move from album to album without having to resort to a template. An editor recently added a studio album chronology to all of David Bowie's albums, which I think helps a lot in the case of albums like The Next Day and Blackstar. I think some chronologies that repeat info are overkill but ultimately I think they're helpful. But that's just my two cents. – zmbro (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agreed with Sergecross73 on this. It's unnecessary to add album chronologies in infoboxes. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with those who want to remove them all, but being realistic, support a limitation to prevent overuse. A single chrono for all of an artist's albums, including studio, live, compilation, reissues, etc., is sufficient. Extra chronos should only be used in exceptional cases by consensus. Adding up to four or five chronos for all the collaborators/guest appearances (seen more in song infoboxes) draws the reader's attention away from the topic and can overwhelm shorter articles. Navigation to other releases is better handled in the navboxes at the bottom, which are actually more useful, like mini discographies. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support a single-chronology limitation. If an article for the next release doesn't exist, skip it - it's most likely not essential, like some obscure EP (linking to an EP section of a discography page might be a bit jarring for the average reader). If the album-to-album trajectory or progression of an artist is relevant enough, it can be covered within the article's text with sources covering such a thing in detail. I know of the snobbishly-defined U.K.-leaning Beatles LP canon, and a similar case with the early Stones albums, that have led to UK-vs.-US chronological constructions, but those are niche concerns (WP:AUDIENCE), and perhaps it would benefit nonspecialist readers to a less segregated or skewed navigational experience. After all, there is also a business-side trajectory/narrative in the careers of professional recording artists and their labels. isento (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose the complete removal from the infobox. Troublesome? Yes. But if I had a dollar for every revert I have performed related to an infobox-related modification, I'd have a lot of them. The chronology is not as contentious as 1) the genre, 2) the release date, 3) the recording date, 4) the recording location, 5) the length, 6) the type, 7) the producers, and 8) the record label. I'd put the chronology as the ninth contentious parameter, yet I don't think any of them will be removed because of the persistent modifications they receive. No comment on the removal of the secondary chronology, but that parameter is used in articles like Cheek to Cheek (album), so a full deletion is incorrect. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 01:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- You bring up a good example: collaborative albums. In which case, I want to amend my support of a single-chronology limit to one with the exception of such cases. isento (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- If we implemented "studio album chronology" to Cheek to Cheek, then it would have four chronologies (two for each artists). I support a single-chronology (studio+live+compilation etc) for each of the artist (in the case of collaborative albums). Bluesatellite (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Like isento and Bluesatellite, I would allow an exception for collaborative albums to only allow additional chronologies to factor in multiple artists, and general ones at that as opposed to those just focusing on studio albums (assuming we use any chronology listings at all). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- If we implemented "studio album chronology" to Cheek to Cheek, then it would have four chronologies (two for each artists). I support a single-chronology (studio+live+compilation etc) for each of the artist (in the case of collaborative albums). Bluesatellite (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- You bring up a good example: collaborative albums. In which case, I want to amend my support of a single-chronology limit to one with the exception of such cases. isento (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Consensus
To me, it looks like we’ve got a loose consensus for limiting it to one chronology - probably the all-types of album/EP/Compilation type. And it’s only okay to have two if it’s like a collaborative album. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sergecross73, This seems wise. I don't know who really uses "Alanis Morissette EPs" as a way to navigate anyway. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Just so long as the point raised by Richard stands: "You might need to keep the extra chronology for something like the Beatles albums, considering how much the early albums vary between the UK and US ..." That issue goes way beyond the Beatles. It's true of chronologies for albums, and singles, for all bands in the so-called British Invasion, because it was only in the late 1960s that US record companies stopped "butchering" albums to make them shorter and filled with hits that the UK acts considered (only) single tracks. This situation gets even more complicated through business concerns – say, through Allen Klein's involvement with the Rolling Stones, whereby his interests ensure that a compilation or outtakes album turns up out the blue and completely contrary to (and sometimes to spite) his former clients' musical direction. And that's not even counting what Decca, the Stones' original record company, went about releasing after the band set up their own label with another company.
- It's complicated, depending on the era, and one era's industry norms influence the next one's. It's boring to talk about or have to consider in any depth, I know, but if you do, the chronologies become (to quote EddieHugh again) "more trouble than they're worth". Within one era – the current one raised here – things can make perfect sense, but it doesn't work across the encyclopedia at all. As long as we're clear on that. JG66 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with that as well. Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with one all-around chronology, limiting to just studio albums isn’t fair to the viewers, and having more than one is confusing. Doggy54321 (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Happy to support one "all-encompassing" chronology, EPs and all album types. Can we make it normal practise to pipe link to the discography where an article doesn't exist? This makes the chain of navigation easier. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support in all cases a single chronology for each artist involved - I don't see the advantage in segregating British invasion albums by region of release, especially considering that the British invasion was an American phenomenon, yet as currently constructed, those Beatles and Rolling Stones chains are kind of marginalizing American releases, where sales of their albums appear to have been higher (judging quickly from sales certifications and the simple advantage of the country's population). Discography pages for those bands already denote what borders on a dogmatic specialist concern (WP:AUDIENCE). Infoboxes are meant to be more barebones and simple (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). I appreciate the argument about the artist's "development" and direction, but albums are as much product as they are works of art. If we're painting a narrative with these chains, it shouldn't be a skewed one privileging the artist over the businessmen or vice versa. Art and commerce go hand-in-hand in this story. isento (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Capitilization of "The Weeknd"
There's a disagreement over whether we should capitalize "the" over at The Weeknd. More input is needed. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Unreliable Source
I would like to add uDiscoverMusic.com to the unreliable sources page as they state on their About Us page, "uDiscoverMusic.com is operated by Universal Music Group, the largest record label in the world and home to the greatest artists in history." It strikes me as a bias source, also the same could be applied to Ones To Watch as they are owened by Live Nation.
Any thoughs? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agree, uDiscoverMusic.com looks like BuzzFeed but for music, it has quizzes, it’s very clearly biased, and it doesn’t look all that reliable. Also agree with Ones To Watch. Doggy54321 (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure they're of the same standard. On Ones to Watch, I can't find anything about the writers' credentials, or who the editorial team might be, or if there is one. But while I agree that uDiscover is biased towards Universal Music artists, I think it could be used for factual information such as birthplaces or tours, at least. And the writers there certainly have pedigree, with a lot of names I recognise from growing up in the UK. Max Bell was writing for NME in the late 70s during the punk and new wave era, before moving on to being the music critic for The Times and the Evening Standard in the 1980s. Paul Sexton was a staff writer at Record Mirror for most of the 1980s and is now a freelance journalist who has written for The Times, The Daily Telegraph, Billboard, Music Week, The Guardian and others. Martin Chilton was the music critic for The Daily Telegraph before becoming the newspaper's Culture Editor. Richard3120 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I asked about uDiscover here sometime last year (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 59#uDiscover Music) – I was surprised to get no takers. I agree it's a cut above, way above, the others in terms of journalistic expertise. Further to Richard's point, I recognise loads of them from old issues of NME, Sounds, Record Collector, Select, Classic Rock, etc. The site can't be faulted at all, on that point at least. JG66 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure they're of the same standard. On Ones to Watch, I can't find anything about the writers' credentials, or who the editorial team might be, or if there is one. But while I agree that uDiscover is biased towards Universal Music artists, I think it could be used for factual information such as birthplaces or tours, at least. And the writers there certainly have pedigree, with a lot of names I recognise from growing up in the UK. Max Bell was writing for NME in the late 70s during the punk and new wave era, before moving on to being the music critic for The Times and the Evening Standard in the 1980s. Paul Sexton was a staff writer at Record Mirror for most of the 1980s and is now a freelance journalist who has written for The Times, The Daily Telegraph, Billboard, Music Week, The Guardian and others. Martin Chilton was the music critic for The Daily Telegraph before becoming the newspaper's Culture Editor. Richard3120 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I never put the journalists "professionalism" at stake here. The main issue, and only to be fair, is who operates those sites, and of course it will be bias towards the artists under their roster. There is a clear conflict of interests. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- But what about the in-depth features, for example? These don't promote any artist at all, and are written by journalists with 30 or 40 years of experience. Richard3120 (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Given the authors' individual credentials, I would use them. But given the publication's affiliations, I would follow WP:NIS and clearly identify the publication in text. (Martin Chilton, writing for Universal Records' music publication uDiscoverMusic, ...) Something like that. isento (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with that, at least it should work in most situations. And in fact where a uDiscover piece is being used to support release and promotional details for an album from decades back – simply saying that these things happened, not their significance – I'd say we could live without stating the publication's affiliations. I don't know if others agree with that. My thinking is that the site's inherent bias will be problematic in certain areas; or needs to be highlighted in others; or is irrelevant/innocuous in others still. JG66 (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Not dissimilarly to what JG66 was saying I think it should be used to source information it gives for the recording, promotion etc. around very old albums. I found this article really quite helpful in building an article as it had information about the main pivot of its subject's commercial success (an Old Grey Whistle Test performance) which I couldn't find anywhere else to cite. As for its critical commentaries, I feel they should also be used albeit with denotation per what Isento was saying.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
uDiscoverMusic.com is not suitable as it creates an edit conflict as its owned by record labels. I'd say, very limited use unless its commenting on something sourced elsewhere e.g. neilsen soundscan sales. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, what you’re saying sounds more or less like WP:PRIMARY, which makes sense considering the source’s ties. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- An exception could be made for those "in depth feature" articles, henceforth I do believe Lil-unique1 says it best here. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Consensus
Letting every user that participated on this discussion to vote, so we can reach a consesus Doggy54321, Richard3120, JG66, Isento, TangoTizerWolfstone, Lil-unique1 and Sergecross73. Nevertheless, who hasn't participated is always welcome of course.
- Unreliable for uDiscoverMusic.com and Ones To Watch as they are owned by record labels and live music promoters and therefore are quite bias on their "own" artists and news reported. On the former website, some journalists have contributed to other websites, which are reliable, nontheless their unbias opinion is not inherited from other websites to this one. However, a side noted could be added for "in depth feature" articles on the former website. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Doggy54321 (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- What is that supposed to mean? There is no “nomination”, and the person who started this discussion is opposed to its use. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- He does support that is unreliable? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- What is that supposed to mean? There is no “nomination”, and the person who started this discussion is opposed to its use. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Use sparingly in accordance of the spirit of WP:PRIMARY. Don’t add it to the WP:RSMUSIC list, which will suggest more of an endorsement that we are giving here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: Why not add it? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Because it’s less of a “use it with conditions” and more of a “don’t use it unless you have to”. Sergecross73 msg me 21:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: Why not add it? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Use sparingly: I recon their articles are useful for sourcing basic information and also for stories around albums/artists and such in their features (like my above John Martyn example), even if its Universal artists in question. Generally I support its other, more opinionated articles (i.e. reviews) on the grounds denotation as to the website's affiliation should made, but due to this, other sources should be given priority.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Use sparingly – context matters. If we just brand the site unreliable, then we should do so for all reissue and box-set liner notes and for record company/artist press releases. The liner notes comparison is especially relevant, because no end of music journalists and historians (eg, David Fricke, Chris Welch, Peter Doggett, Richie Unterberger, Harvey Kubernik) write them and are therefore temporarily on a record company's payroll. Using uDiscover pieces for release dates, recording details, promotion, tours, perhaps chart performance, is fine, imo, just as sourcing this information to a reissue's liner note essay would be. For any discussion of an album's significance, then we should attribute the statements and clarify the nature of the source. For anything beyond that, we shouldn't use it as a source at all.
- Previous discussions here – the one about Idolator being RS or non-RS comes to mind – got me looking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Unsurprisingly, the list on that page is far more nuanced than a basic yes/no; there's the likes of AllMusic (listed under RhythmOne) and Rolling Stone carrying caveats regarding their usage. It's the same for all sources – they're appropriate and "reliable" in some contexts, but definitely not in others. (I'm increasingly seeing this context-based reliability as an issue in our music genre articles as well: The rock subgenres have all received no end of dedicated coverage, so our articles should be based on those non-partisan sources for the most part, rather than on any review or other coverage dedicated to a specific album/artist. The latter type of sources can make grand claims about an album's significance in a subgenre or music scene, but that's for the album article; authoritative sources on the subgenre may not recognise the album in the same light.) I think this sort of discernment in deciding where the conflict of interest and inherent bias is a genuine problem, and where it's not, should be applied to uDiscover and similar sources. JG66 (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Use sparingly - Useable, not preferable, as explained above. isento (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Adding Invisible Oranges to reliable sources
Invisible Oranges is a heavy metal online music magazine that has been around since 2006. It has had at least fifty different writers over the years publishing articles. The website is currently used in over 200 music-related Wikipedia articles, mainly as sources, but also as review ratings and as direct links for quotes from interviews (What Links Here). As another heavy metal blog of the same caliber, MetalSucks, is already listed as a reliable sources, would Invisible Oranges also qualify? LOCdataLKR44 (talk) August 23, 2020, 12:00 (UTC)
- Before we get into that, it seems like about 99% of your edits are related to the website. That’s...not common. Do you have a connection to the site? You’re supposed to disclose it if you do. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oh dear me no! I work for the Library of Congress! I thought that my username made that clear. I just happen to be a long-time reader of the blog and noticed that a redirect article had been created several years ago, but no real article. LOCdataLKR44 (talk) August 23, 2020, 13:18 (UTC)
- Well, people can make usernames about whatever they want more or less, so I tend to look at their actual edits more than their names. Anyways, here’s some things to consider when figuring out whether or not a source is reliable/usable in the Wikipedia context:
- Is there an editorial staff?
- Is there editorial policy and editorial oversight?
- Are the editors writers with actual credentials? Do they have experience writing for other reliable publications? College degrees in relevant areas? Or does their expertise revolve around “being the biggest fan” or “loving the subject for a long time”?
- In short, if the answers tend to point more towards them being a professional organization with actual credentials, you’re more likely to have people agree that it’s a reliable source. If they’re more accurately described as “super fans” or “amateur enthusiasts with a lot of passion”, then they’re more likely to be rejected as unusable. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is a bit problematic. The website does have an editor-in-chief and a senior editor. But it does state right off the bat that it's a blog, and none of the contributors are full-time members of staff – even editor-in-chief Andrew Rothmund only edits the blog in his spare time, as his main job is as a professional photographer. It also invites contributions from anybody who wants to write for them, and also invites artists to send links to their material for review. That would tend to put them in the category of "very professionally-run blog with experienced writers, but a blog nevertheless". In addition, it's now part of Brooklyn Vegan, and I'm not sure if we decided if BV was a reliable source or not... it would be a bit odd to have this as an RS but not its parent company. Richard3120 (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to say no based on Richard's reasoning. If the editor-in-chief doesn't even focus his profession on writing or editing, I don't think this is a well-represented organization. dannymusiceditor oops 14:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed with Richard, which was some of what I was going to point out too, but I was trying to not be the only bad guy pointing out how people’s sources arent acceptable. It looks far more like “enthusiast” than “professional” with these sorts of traits. I think it’s unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Happy to be the bad guy. ;-) I find that metal in general has lots of websites like this, because of the lack of coverage of the genre – in the UK it looks as though Kerrang! has gone under, at least as a print magazine, because of the coronavirus, which leaves just the three publications under the Louder Sound banner (Metal Hammer, Classic Rock and Prog) as the only British magazine coverage of the harder end of rock music. We really need to do some tidying up of acceptable sources for rock and metal coverage – Lykaia (album) has fourteen reviews in the ratings table... and I don't think any of them are reliable. Richard3120 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don’t usually mind being the bad guy, but it can get tiring, between doing it here and the video game WikiProject, which is another content area with a lot of unusable blogging sources going on. But yes, again, I agree. Tons of unreliable sources are frequently used in the rock/metal area, and I think part of it is that both genre are far less popular than rap/pop/electronic in recent years. We’ve discussed a lot of the sources, it’s just that so much is written by passerby and casual editors that don’t know the standards. I do what I can in the modern rock area, but there’s no denying it’s a constant uphill battle. With Lykaia, we consider two of those sources usable. Metal Injection and Metal Storm. Honestly, outside of the four websites starting with “Metal” on the WP:RSMUSIC list, I tend to assume any other websites that start with “Metal” are generally unusable fansites. (It’s works like that in any content area - if you’re writing about Sonic the Hedgehog, just about every www.sonic_____.com website is an amateur fansite, because professional publications rarely have such a narrow scope.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Happy to be the bad guy. ;-) I find that metal in general has lots of websites like this, because of the lack of coverage of the genre – in the UK it looks as though Kerrang! has gone under, at least as a print magazine, because of the coronavirus, which leaves just the three publications under the Louder Sound banner (Metal Hammer, Classic Rock and Prog) as the only British magazine coverage of the harder end of rock music. We really need to do some tidying up of acceptable sources for rock and metal coverage – Lykaia (album) has fourteen reviews in the ratings table... and I don't think any of them are reliable. Richard3120 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed with Richard, which was some of what I was going to point out too, but I was trying to not be the only bad guy pointing out how people’s sources arent acceptable. It looks far more like “enthusiast” than “professional” with these sorts of traits. I think it’s unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to say no based on Richard's reasoning. If the editor-in-chief doesn't even focus his profession on writing or editing, I don't think this is a well-represented organization. dannymusiceditor oops 14:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is a bit problematic. The website does have an editor-in-chief and a senior editor. But it does state right off the bat that it's a blog, and none of the contributors are full-time members of staff – even editor-in-chief Andrew Rothmund only edits the blog in his spare time, as his main job is as a professional photographer. It also invites contributions from anybody who wants to write for them, and also invites artists to send links to their material for review. That would tend to put them in the category of "very professionally-run blog with experienced writers, but a blog nevertheless". In addition, it's now part of Brooklyn Vegan, and I'm not sure if we decided if BV was a reliable source or not... it would be a bit odd to have this as an RS but not its parent company. Richard3120 (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, people can make usernames about whatever they want more or less, so I tend to look at their actual edits more than their names. Anyways, here’s some things to consider when figuring out whether or not a source is reliable/usable in the Wikipedia context:
- Oh dear me no! I work for the Library of Congress! I thought that my username made that clear. I just happen to be a long-time reader of the blog and noticed that a redirect article had been created several years ago, but no real article. LOCdataLKR44 (talk) August 23, 2020, 13:18 (UTC)
So...
Is BrooklynVegan a reliable source? I've used it just a couple of times, but have read in AfDs, for example, that some editors consider it to be reliable. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I’ve usually stayed away, because I thought we considered it non-reliable, but it’s not on the list, so maybe it’s a good time for a closer look. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Caro7200, I 100% think so, especially for their competence in indie rock. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, I look at it like the Rhino Records site, or maybe All Tomorrow's Parties...pretty good...or at the least full of obsessive nerds. Caro7200 (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Can you clarify or elaborate? It’s not that I doubt, I’d just like to know. Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:Songs about this issue, which also applies to some album articles, I believe. Any interested editors, please weigh in at WT:SONG#Inclusion of charts-related lists in "See also" sections. JG66 (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:List of Shugo Chara! soundtracks#Merger proposal
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Shugo Chara! soundtracks#Merger proposal. starship.paint (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
What to do when a source doesn't list magazine page numbers
So I recently got access to Rock's Backpages and it seems like a great source for older magazine articles. There's one catch. In an ironic twist, Rock's Backpages doesn't actually list page numbers. It lists the publication, the date, and author, but no page numbers. So what do I do? Famous Hobo (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Famous Hobo, I say include what you can include. In practice, magazines are 1.) generally fairly short compared to (e.g.) books or databases and 2.) logically laid out so that finding the relevant passage is usually pretty easy. If you're mentioning an interview, I can probably find the subject in the table of contents. If you're referencing a review, there is almost always a reviews section to narrow down my search to just a few pages of the publication. Much better to have a somewhat incomplete citation than either not citing or never including the info in the first place. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree... if you have the issue number/date, it's not going to be that difficult for anyone who comes across the print source to look through one issue of the magazine and find the article and add the page number(s) in due course. Whenever I'm in the UK I usually go into the British Library to do some research and they have many music magazines in there in their print version, so if you tell me anything you're particularly trying to find the page number for, I can check next time I'm in there (probably next year now, with all the travel disruption). Richard3120 (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Famous Hobo, I'm an RBP subscriber and have used the archived articles as sources for years. It's fine to just use whatever details are there (I've never had a problem in all that time). Often I come across the same review or article cited in a biography or reference book on music, with page number(s) included in the book's citation, so obviously, that can be carried over to our source. I don't know if that's relevant for you – it probably depends on the era you focus on here. JG66 (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, agree. There is an emergency access system the University of Michigan has put in place during the pandemic--scans of hundreds of thousands of items are available to subscribing universities. I've noticed some ancient issues of magazines where every page number has been accidentally clipped, due to being so close to the edge...they're also bundled in volumes, so there's no way I'm going to finger count through hundreds of pages... Caro7200 (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks guys! It'll be slightly annoying not having page numbers, but the information still exists, so I should use it. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Famous Hobo: as I said above, if you let me know the article you're editing and the magazine and date, I'll have a look for the page number in the print edition next time I'm at the British Library, and add it to the relevant article. Richard3120 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks guys! It'll be slightly annoying not having page numbers, but the information still exists, so I should use it. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, agree. There is an emergency access system the University of Michigan has put in place during the pandemic--scans of hundreds of thousands of items are available to subscribing universities. I've noticed some ancient issues of magazines where every page number has been accidentally clipped, due to being so close to the edge...they're also bundled in volumes, so there's no way I'm going to finger count through hundreds of pages... Caro7200 (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Famous Hobo, I'm an RBP subscriber and have used the archived articles as sources for years. It's fine to just use whatever details are there (I've never had a problem in all that time). Often I come across the same review or article cited in a biography or reference book on music, with page number(s) included in the book's citation, so obviously, that can be carried over to our source. I don't know if that's relevant for you – it probably depends on the era you focus on here. JG66 (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree... if you have the issue number/date, it's not going to be that difficult for anyone who comes across the print source to look through one issue of the magazine and find the article and add the page number(s) in due course. Whenever I'm in the UK I usually go into the British Library to do some research and they have many music magazines in there in their print version, so if you tell me anything you're particularly trying to find the page number for, I can check next time I'm in there (probably next year now, with all the travel disruption). Richard3120 (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
QRO Magazine
I am wondering if this website is considered reliable or not. This is their staff list, the date says 2007 but it is different from earlier versions of the page.[13][14] Most of the site's content as of right now (at least the album/track reviews) is written by associate editor Ted Chase, though this wasn't the case originally. Occasionally, there are other people who write instead.[15][16][17][18] It also looks like it was cited once by Goldmine. Any thoughts? ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
The Music Network
Following comments here and at Talk:Sour Candy (Lady Gaga and Blackpink song)#Sour Candy - a single?, I propose formally adding this publication to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Unreliable sources. Any objections? At the very least, it's subpar for release dates, and certainly not as authoritative as ARIA or even Noise11 for Australia-related music matters. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)