Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 61

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think several people here keep up with Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes, including myself. There are two album articles that having been popping up there again and again as edit wars flame over what type of albums they are.

• The Beatles' Story
• Lil Uzi Vert vs. the World 2

These edit wars have become somewhat contentious, with some participants unaware of what the TYPE field in the infobox is supposed to do. "Lil Uzi Vert" even has a warning in the source code (< ! -- X -- > ) to not change the type. I've been watching the two of these and tried to intervene a few times, but to no avail. Any ideas? Note that a change that makes sense for this project is probably going to be reverted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Kylie Christmas: Snow Queen Edition, The Black Parade/Living with Ghosts, and The Fame Monster. As for The Beatles' Story, I'm not really sure about it, it's neither recorded in studio, nor performed live. Maybe it could be considered compilation album, I mean it's a "compilation" of various stuff (interview, songs, documentary)? Bluesatellite (talk

) 00:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It's described as a documentary record/album in two reliable sources dealing with the band's discography and wider career. I've seen no sources defining it as a compilation, though. The Beatles were quite capable of releasing compilation albums, and those same reliable sources (and many more) describe the latter records as compilation albums, because that's what they are. I don't understand the problem. The infobox at The Beatles' Story is currently rendered in a colour that Template:Infobox album#type defines as "other" – which is perfectly accurate given the options available. But it sounds, here, as if original research is preferred to ensure that the album fits into one of the non-"other" types. I'm sure there were other records like this around that time. The Beatles Tapes from the David Wigg Interviews would be another perhaps, although I'm not sure its content goes much beyond straight interview. JG66 (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe that

Live album is the recording of concert (live show), so calling an album of interviews as "live" album is misleading to me. Bluesatellite (talk

) 03:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with

The Button Down Mind of Bob Newhart, ...Is It Something I Said? and No Cure for Cancer. Richard3120 (talk

) 14:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an excellent discussion of how those two albums should be categorized, but we also have the edit wars over the TYPE field as well. Edit summaries and warnings in the code have gotten contentious. The guy who has altered the TYPE for the Beatles record said "who cares?" in one edit summary. I have said several times to various parties that the TYPE field needs a particular value while the item's unconventional nature can be described in the text, and provided links to the Infobox template rules, but that message just doesn't get across. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Er yes. And the message that we're talking about that needs to be addressed hasn't got through to you, has it? Reason being you're so obsessed with rules and ticking a little box. And if we're talking about the issue here, you might want to use something other than "The guy who has altered the TYPE for the Beatles record", because we're all editors with usernames. Also, you're making out this is some longstanding problem – I've never heard of you, never had any interaction with you until that recent, single example. So yes, I wrote "who cares" about type, but your approach appears to be "who cares" about ensuring an album is presented accurately and without indulging in original research to tick that precious box. JG66 (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of you before either. But I have heard that the Albums Project, where the present discussion is taking place, has style guidelines that help with the categorization and maintenance of articles for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. This Project has many members who care about that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

There's been a couple of AfDs where the article creator has stated that these two websites are reliable sources – as a non-rock/metalhead myself it would be good to get some consensus as to whether these can be used as reliable sources.

• Rocktopia – website seems to have editorial control and is linked to Fireworks magazine... I don't know if this magazine is well-established and widely available. One thing that might be a concern here is that they run their own record label, so there could be a conflict of interest in using their reviews for their own albums.
• Metal Heads Forever – this looks more problematic... it's been around for ten years, but it still looks like it's a worldwide community fan site, overseen by its founder Dave Mahoney. Can't see any evidence of credentials for its writers. Richard3120 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Rocktopia – What would be its label? Rocktopia Records?! It is a minor label. The only prominent band that has already gone on to Frontiers for 4 years now is Gary Hughes' Ten, in which Don Airey and Mark Zonder also played. Therefore there is no conflict of interest. As for reliability, I think it is enough to navigate on Google to detect it.
• Metal Heads Forever – As for Metal Heads Forever, looking at the site, it seems anything but a simple community, given the accuracy of the reviews and the importance of the musicians who lend themselves to the interviews published (one of the last, Derrick Green of Sepultura). User:Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ive never heard of either, which doesn’t bode well anecdotally considering how much I’ve worked in rock music articles in the last decade. Sergecross73 msg me 12:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand the comment about the "accuracy of the reviews"... all reviews are subjective opinions, there is no "right" or "wrong" review. Richard3120 (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Not to be mean, but virtually nothing that user said would constitute a valid rationale as far as Wikipedia goes. Sergecross73 msg me 21:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Generally Unreliable With no editorial boards, the only things that could be considered reliable would be that an album they reviewed might exist and a quote they've made, if uncontroversial, would be true. I would not use them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - These are just amateur enthusiast bloggers. As their About Us page suggests, they have no particular professional qualifications beyond “liking metal music”. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

BrooklynVegan is often described as a music blog but has an editorial and writing staff. Their news content is already in use on Wikipedia, however, I thought it would be a good idea to have a consensus on the album reviews. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Do their writers have credentials? Do they have any editorial policy? Their “about us” page doesn’t really say anything beyond their names and links to their social media. That’s generally not how professional publications do it... Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I recently have an

I certainly think it should be standardised either one way or the other... it seems silly that we insist on "AllMusic" not being capitalised in that album ratings table, and yet it appears as "AllMusic" in the references, because the website parameter italicises everything. A similar thing happens for the BBC when we use their website as a source, for example. Richard3120 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be italicised in main text. This is the problem that a few of us raised at the cite template help (so-called!) page: that website=/work= renders all text in italics, and unlike in years gone by, one can't now add markup there to de-italicise words like AllMusic to match how the words appear in the article and even in the article for the website. It wasn't just the titles of music websites – World Health Organization, United Nations, loads of examples came up.

So, the situation you're referring to is, imo, an example of how that issue was always likely to roll on into article style and for the wrong reasons – in that restrictions in the templates could be allowed to dictate prose style, whereas it should be article and encyclopaedia-wide prose style that gets carried through into cite, table, box, etc templates. It used to be possible to just use publisher= for non-ital words such as AllMusic, as an alternative to de-italicising inside website=, and that's the way I'd seen it done for years, in hundreds of articles. But that was dealt with by the template editors also, with bots changing all examples (and often introducing errors). The only way around this issue currently is to write the reference out manually and avoid the cite template altogether. JG66 (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Online)." Is anyone denying that All Music is an "online non-user-generated encyclopedia"? Further, is anyone really claiming that AllMusic is a publisher? Emeraude (talk

) 08:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I am.

WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, far as I can remember. Besides, I wouldn't trust that the MOS wording hasn't been doctored of late to steer towards italicisation, and not necessarily with consensus support. JG66 (talk

) 08:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This has been the subject of a RfC and follow-up (complete with sock puppets, good luck!). One problem is when Template:AllMusic is used (can be used with <ref></ref>), it produces:

• Erlewine, Stephen Thomas. Review of Physical Graffiti at
  AllMusic
  . Retrieved March 30, 2014.

while Template:Cite web with |website=AllMusic or |work=AllMusic, produces:

• Erlewine, Stephen Thomas. "Led Zeppelin: Physical Graffiti – Review". AllMusic. Retrieved March 30, 2014.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Emeraude: You already tell me about that in your talk page and you have failed to convince me. Just as JG66 pointed out, just because the cite web template italicized AllMusic or any other website doesn't mean it should be italicized in the main text. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I know what I told you on my talk page. I'm not talking to you here. Not everyone here has been involved on my talk page. You invited me to come here and give my views. I have. Emeraude (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I have wondered about this as well. I don't italicize, due to its own page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Thanks to all for any further guidance... Caro7200 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I've been seeing this phrase - "Traditional album sales" - used a lot here at articles for modern album releases, in the context of sales recorded in total as

I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think wholesale is going to be any more easily understood. I usually just use some sort of combination of “sales” or “units sold”. Usually, in my experience at least, I’m writing about

album equivalent units right, which I wiki-link to, so I feel like that helps provide context and guidance over what “sales” means. Linking to the respective charts generally helps too, depending on the subject. I commonly link to Billboard 200 and Top Album Sales to explain the context, for example. Sergecross73 msg me

13:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think seeing as both Billboard and the OCC in the UK call those charts "Album Sales" on their websites I think we should stick to calling them that, to avoid any confusion over which chart and sales methodology we are talking about. I'm pretty sure Music Week talks about "album sales" rather than "wholesale" when discussing these figures in articles, and I assume Billboard magazine does the same. Richard3120 (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Isento I'm not a native English speaker, but is downloading an album in Itunes considered part of "wholesale"? Because "traditional album sales" includes both physical and digital product selling, as opposed to service-subscription (streaming). Bluesatellite (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources - reports of album sales - such as these ([1], [2]) use "traditional album sales" in reference to both physical and digital copies of an entire album.

talk

) 13:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Isento: Yeah I know, I already said the same. Because, to me, "wholesale" sounds like a company put their (physical) goods in retail stores. So, is legal downloading part of "wholesale"? That's what I'm asking. Bluesatellite (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps then phrasing it instead as "copies sold"?

talk

) 14:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Example.

talk

) 14:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s how I generally do it. I think that’s good. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Traditional album sales - or making the differentiation between sales/units sold and album-equivalent units is the easiest/best way to distinguish it. That's how many chart providers describe it too. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Just came across this discussion... If I'm understanding the discussion correctly, I have mostly seen physical and digital copies being called "pure sales", as opposed to units (which of course include streaming). This is common terminology that Billboard uses and has been using since the inception of streaming came into play with how albums/units are counted. It's the most understood term in the record industry. "Traditional album sales" is a similar, but secondary term.

AshMusique (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added some album articles to Category:Works postponed due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.

I wonder if we should create the subcategory Category:Albums postponed due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic?

---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, Seems fair since there are categories for other media, including one that only has five members (so far). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, Thanks.  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I searched the archive but didn't see a relevant thread, pardon me if this is already covered. While most track listings are a very straightforward section that strictly has the track listing itself, I'm seeing more and more articles where someone is providing a citation for the track listing. This seems unnecessary: the album is the source for the track listing. This is absurd. We don't need an infinite series of sources where a third-party needs to say what's on the actual album itself and then another third party needs to say that the first third party says it, etc. If you want to know what's on an album, look at the album. Just like how if you want to know what's in an article, read the article. First-hand sources are perfectly acceptable for claims about the thing itself.

Additionally, it seems like these citations are frequently to stores. Per

So I am proposing the following changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice:

• In regards to track listings, we should explicitly say that they do not need sources, as the source is the album. In the rare cases where a track listing somehow includes controversial information (e.g. the songwriting credits are inaccurate), we should encourage the use of third-party sources.
• We should explicitly include language that directs readers to
  WP:AFFILIATE
  and asks them to find non-commercial sources of information.
• Include language for personnel section to the effect that the most likely source for most personnel sections in album articles is the liner notes and we only need citations from third parties if there is some value added by them. E.g. the liner notes say "Band [x] is Johnny, Sam, and Tina" but a third party source explicitly states that Tina played dobro on "Song 5", etc. I think we should also reiterate the warning from
  WP:AFFILIATE and refer editors to {{Cite AV media
  }} if they need to explicitly cite the liner notes.

Thoughts? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Completely agreed on all counts. My only addition is that I do think a source is warranted for track lists when albums are yet to be released. It helps weed out speculative and hoax track lists. But as soon as it’s out, it’s not longer needed. Sergecross73 msg me 23:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this and I concur with all of this.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

My instinct is that track listings at least shouldn't require citations in the same way that plot sections don't for works of fiction... Popcornfud (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I made a first pass: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Albums%2FAlbum_article_style_advice&type=revision&diff=951215691&oldid=937972527 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. I also proposed the removal of "producer" (that already listed on Track listing) from "Personnel" section, just like songwriters. Why do we need duplicates? Executive producer can stay on personnel section obviously. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with that, and think that should probably be a separate discussion as to not muddy the waters up on a consensus here... Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Bluesatellite, Producers actually helped make the album, whereas songwriters do sometimes and sometimes not. Many track listings do not include the producer of tracks as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I see. If the producers are not listed on the tracklisting, then it's a must to include it on the "Personnel" section. I only pointed out the duplication. Especially when "personnel" section is usually placed right after the "tracklisting" section.

Lemonade (Beyoncé album)#Personnel is a good example, since this album has a ton of producers and songwriters. Bluesatellite (talk

) 03:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: I agreed with most of the things you said, I know there has been some disagree with Tidal being used as a source for album credits with editor Nice4What in the past. That's probably one of the reasons why started this discussion.

@Bluesatellite: I also disagree with you as well. Just as Koavf pointed out, I think we should keep the producer parameter in the track listing template, and I feel this topic should be in another discussion later. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts I never said to remove producers from "Tracklisting" template. I said we exclude them from "Personnel" section if it's already on the tracklisting. But you're right that it should be discussed in a separate thread. Again, I agree with the issue Koavf pointed out on here. Cheers Bluesatellite (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This is missing the point as to why Tidal is even used. Tidal, unlike the other streaming services, lists all credits for personnel/production/songwriting. The citation isn't just for the track order, and more and more albums are becoming streaming-only so no physical liner notes exist. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nice4What: Spotify often has credits too - its not exclusive to tidal. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 13:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Spotify has recently added the credits, but its only accessible for people with Spotify accounts. Tidal has always had full credits and they're easily accessible for all users (which also might make a point for using Tidal when liner notes are not digitally available). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I just tried the credits feature on Spotify and, at least for the artist I tried (Radiohead), it's seriously lacking. Much less information given than in the liner notes. Popcornfud (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The point is that Tidal often has more information that Spotify, and that with a lack of liner notes, Tidal is the go-to. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

While Tidal and the like probably shouldn't be used at all, I assumed that when sources are listed in an article that the physical liner notes weren't used. With more and more streaming, downloads, etc., it is more likely that the actual liner notes will not be consulted. It is better for the reader to know what the source is and anything which even hints that this is unneeded should not be added to style advice/guidance pages because of the potential for misunderstanding/misapplication. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I would agree. If liner notes are used, cite them. If Tidal is used instead, cite that. Let's not confused the reader. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice4What, Liner notes can be digital: no one said anything about them having to be physical. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

They don't have to be, but often (for hip-hop releases especially) there are no "liner notes" other than Tidal credits and metadata. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Still don't think that explains why the source is needed in the track listing section as it is often included in the credits section anyway. I really think the whole discussion is neither here nor there as long as somewhere in the article there is a link to the liner/tidal or another reliable source. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"Personnel" and "Track listing" are two separate subsections, thus both subsections need to be cited. Why not have the source cited in both places? It's just a matter of using the parameter <ref name="Tidal"/>. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, if the actual liner notes are used and there is no controversy or dispute, I don't think that {{cite AV media notes}} is necessary. However, there has been a fair amount of subtle vandalism in some articles, when running times have been changed, musical instrument brands have added, etc., so including a source is always a good approach. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It appears that Tidal, Spotify, and other streaming/download sites don't provide a copy of the actual record company liner notes. So, where do they get their "album credits" and how reliable should we consider these? Are they much better than AllMusic or discogs? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Ojorojo, I've asked this before more than once and gotten that "they come from the record labels" but that claim had no source. I'd be very interested to see if anyone can answer this question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

If Tidal has different information than Spotify, then they're not using the same source or they extract it differently. Walter Görlitz mentioned that AllMusic used a Gracenote-type service and my experience has been that AM credits are definitely not reliable. Without knowing whether a particular provider is using an unadulterated official source, we should not treat it as being on a level with the actual liner notes. Meanwhile, without including an "Album credits from" source statement in WP articles, readers may conclude that they come from some fundamental source ("the actual album itself"), which doesn't appear to be the case. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Ojorojo, Whether or not a source is official is really irrelevant: liner notes are sometimes inaccurate. Whether or not AllMusic or Tidal are "official", it's not clear which one is accurate when they contradict one another. Do we have any way of knowing if one of them is more accurate than another? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that AllMusic uses a customer-driven track listing database, which is what Gracenote does. I don't know how they add track titles, but they do have errors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

RE: Where AllMusic gets its credit information from: "Updates to credits should be sent to our data provider, TiVo. Information on how to contact TiVo to add new credits can be found on our Product Submissions page. You may submit credit-related corrections to TiVo editors using the Submit Corrections links available in the sidebar on artist and album pages. Please try to be as specific as possible in your submission. Submissions that are vague or inconclusive cannot be acted upon and may be rejected.

Please do not contact AllMusic about the status of data corrections; we don't control which data is corrected or how long it takes to apply corrections, and we can't move up your correction in priority or within a specific time frame. TiVo appreciates the time you take to send this information to them, but due to the immense volume of correspondence they receive, they're unable to directly respond to most of your submissions." [3]--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

L.A. Woman (subject to a lot a vandalism) had a very detailed personnel section,[4] but not from the liner notes. Searches were unable to confirm many of the details, so the section was trimmed to what is actually in the liner.[5] New sources need to be identified so any added info can be confirmed. Otherwise, original research and disinformation can be slipped in under the guise of "liner notes". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This is why we should cite liner notes when used. It seems to me to be a non-issue. Also, streaming services such as Tidal get their liner notes from the metadata provided by the albums/songs whenever they're uploaded. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It's bizarre that sources for details, such as songwriters, producers, personnel, etc., that are shown as AllMusic, iTunes, etc., are being removed from articles, but the actual information is left intact. I guess we are supposed to assume that it is correct, although we can't verify the source. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see these two edits to

I will have to agree with the Authority Control inclusion. Like with music artist articles, it's a way of verifying information, for example, tracklists. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Why instruct people to add a see also section that sends people to a list of albums released that year? See also sections are always optional, as the MoS states:

MOS:SEEALSO. We shouldn't be contradicting the MoS and telling everyone to include a particular link. EddieHugh (talk

) 20:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I see no reason to encourage this practice. One could just click the YYYY albums category if truly interested in knowing other albums released the same year, but there’s no need to add to the See also section of every album article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

No reason for them. Finding other albums released in the same year can be done through categories. Those are already on every article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Unneeded. Also, consensus for changes to the style advice page should be reached before being implemented. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I was directed to this discussion by Koavf on my talk page because I was independently purging the unnecessary See Also: List of 2020 albums listings on multiple 2020 album articles without being aware that Koavf had added an undiscussed policy about See Also listings. I have purged about 1/3 of the listings, but will hold off on purging the other 2/3rds until we come to a consensus. I was purging these listings not as a protest against a bad policy but because this is something I do regularly over years. I admit I was surprised at how many were associated with the 2020 album list, even albums that are not listed on the 2020 album list.

I see that there is now an unvoted-on policy about the See Also listing at the bottom of the page. My objection has been that this is the function of Categories, and adding the See Also serves no real purpose other than bloating the article a little, and maybe adding one more section which would allow the Table of Contents to activate and display at the top of the page. I guess one reason against this is avoiding duplicate linking (

MOS:REPEATLINK), but that is just me conflating linking to a list with the Category lists. Still, excessive and serves no purpose. Mburrell (talk

) 02:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Mburrell, I did not add any policies. Please don't make false statements. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice is barely an essay. I don't think adding a link to albums by year has gained any traction. I think that should be removed, at least for now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Please remove it from the article style advice. I've got another issue relating to what should or should not appear in album (and song) See Also listings, but I'll raise that below or perhaps at WT Songs. JG66 (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the "See also" section per this discussion. ƏXPLICIT 05:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Now launched at

Should we create categories for solo albums created by members of more famous bands? For example, we could have a "Solo albums by Beatles members" category, and include Imagine (album), McCartney (album), etc.

My logic is that it might be useful to see all these things in one place. But I rarely use categories as a Wikipedia reader, and as an editor it's one of the things I work on the least, so I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not. There's probably a reason it hasn't been done already. Any thoughts? Popcornfud (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You're suggesting some sort of overarching category that would then have Category:John Lennon albums, Category:Paul McCartney albums, etc. as subcategories? Richard3120 (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120, that's an implication that I hadn't thought of, but yes I suppose so! Popcornfud (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

catseealso}}. E.g. Category:Led Zeppelin albums uses this to link to Category:Robert Plant albums and vice versa. Is there something about this method that's insufficient? Could that be improved? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 19:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, hmm, interesting. I didn't know about this, thanks. Certainly seems like a good idea to use this to connect related categories where it makes sense.

However, it's not quite the same thing, because 1) you still have to navigate between individual categories and 2) you can only see the "see also" links by being in a different place initially, so it's less discoverable. Popcornfud (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, re: #2: where would you see Category:John Lennon solo albums? I'm confused as to how you would discover this and from where...? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean with the "Category:John Lennon solo albums" example, so I'll try with the initial idea instead.

If we had a "Solo albums by Beatles members" category, it would be discoverable at the bottom of every article about a solo album by a Beatles member. Readers can think "oh, that sounds interesting", follow the link and end up in the category page with all the solo albums by each member listed in one place.

However, if we just use see-also links to connect the categories as you suggest, they become much less discoverable. A reader would have to end up on the category page for, say, John Lennon, to realise they can move to other (individual) Beatles solo categories. Popcornfud (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Similar attempts were deleted in the past although they go back to 2007 (see Category:The Cars' solo albums and Category:New Edition solo albums). So would you categorize each article on a John Lennon album as "solo albums by Beatles members" or just make it a parent to Category:John Lennon albums, etc.? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, thanks for finding those older cases. I took a look at the deletion discussions but didn't completely follow them. One comment said "The additional categorization by musicians' former groups has little utility and sets a bad precedent"; I personally think it would be pretty useful to see all the Beatles' solo albums in one place but perhaps others disagree?

As I said, I have little experiences working with categories so I'll defer to what more experienced editors think about whether this is a good idea.

As for your question - do you have a preference? It certainly sounds as if just making Category:John Lennon albums a child of Category:Solo albums by the Beatles would be faster. But do parent categories appear in lists of categories on article pages? Popcornfud (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I'm going to make a category for "Solo albums by Radiohead members".

If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, let me know. Popcornfud (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Please identify restrictions. Is this something for all bands, say Traveling Wilburys or Velvet Revolver? Chicago? Commodores? What about side projects of band members, say Mike + the Mechanics versus specifically solo albums by Mike Rutherford. Are all of Sammy Hagar's solo albums "solo albums by Van Halen members" even though he was a well-established artist before he even joined the band? Do Chris Cornell albums get categorized as "solo albums by Soundgarden members", "solo albums by Audioslave members", and "solo albums by Temple of the Dog members"? Just things to consider. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, can't answer any of those questions without knowing more about those acts. I am sort of assuming this sort of category would be used on a case-by-case basis.

imo it makes sense for Radiohead members, as 1) each member was famous for Radiohead years before doing any side projects 2) Radiohead is still a going concern - ie not something that ended years ago and no longer relevant to the members' solo careers. In the case of Radiohead, I would exclude side project albums such as Amok (Atoms for Peace album), as it's an album by a band led by Radiohead singer Thom Yorke rather than a solo album by Thom Yorke.

If similar categories don't make sense for other groups (and I'm not saying they do), does that mean one should not be made for Radiohead? Genuine question, I have no idea how categories work. Popcornfud (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Categories aren't typically created case by case. It sets up a scheme that can be applied to similar cases. I think without well-defined parameters, people will take this in anyway they see fit. What would an appropriate parent category be for all of these creations? Category:Solo albums by musical group? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, another good question, to which I have no answer.

Anyway, it sounds like there are good reasons to holding off creating this category so I'll leave it unless someone else wants to chime in. Thanks for your feedback, it is helpful. Popcornfud (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, I appreciate you trying to be innovative, I just think this idea is a miss. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, I object. I don't think this is practical or useful idea. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

An alternative cover art of Music to Be Murdered By and the cover art of 1950s album showing Alfred Hitchcock have been discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 February 23. The nominations were relisted twice, so I invite you to discussion. --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear all, please will you be so kind to leave a comment regarding this RFC at Wikipedia talk: Record charts#Request for comment: Slovakia and Czech Republic Radio Top 100 to be omitted when a song has already charted on Single Top 100. Many thanks. CoolMarc 11:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We have to revisit this old chestnut because an editor has started re-adding these words to the album ratings. I already have one ongoing dispute with this editor, but this one affects this project more directly, so please feel free to participate at

We know it is generally unreliable for genres but what about for dates of birth as seen here for example? Robvanvee 09:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s generally unreliable overall. I thought in past discussions it was found to be generated from another source altogether. Sergecross73 msg me 11:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Found the first discussion easily but not the 2nd one as easily so I thought I'd just ask. After a bit more of a search I found the 2nd and yes, It appears the consensus applied to the sidebar as a whole. I have updated the link to the 2017 discussion. Thanks Sergecross73. Robvanvee 12:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I totally get it too, there’s been a lot of discussions about Allmusic over the years. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

AllMusic states that almost everything (including factual data and reviews) comes from "our data provider, TiVo" (here, click on 'The information about an artist or album on AllMusic is incorrect'). How those things are created remains a mystery. I don't see a consensus that the entire sidebar is unreliable; if there is one, that fact should be made much clearer. Is there evidence that information such as dates of birth are often wrong? EddieHugh (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean, there’s years and years of people pointing out erroneous dates and info, and rather questionable genre labels. Quite the opposite, if errors are observed and little is known about where the info comes from,

it should be considered unreliable until people start presenting evidence that it’s reliable. We don’t just default to a reliable stance... Sergecross73 msg me

18:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I had a major battle last year just to get a sentence added pointing out that AllMusic dates are not infallible. For that, I had to present a lot of evidence, and it was suggested that I should demonstrate that 50%+1 of entries were wrong before any change to the advice could be made! So I seek clarity on exactly what consensuses we have, and what evidence is required. I don't trust AllMusic for much, and would prefer to use it only for its main text (that's attributed to an author), but we should be basing our collective decisions on evidence. What's the evidence against dates of birth and other personal details in AM's biographies? EddieHugh (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There are no infallible sources. AllMusic is no worse as a source than an average magazine (online or printed). I don't know, maybe they are being "too free" with the information they put in the "genre" fields, but why should we not trust them with something as basic as birth dates? --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

AllMusic's printed reference works, such as the All Music Guide to Jazz and All Music Guide to the Blues, which contain artist bios, are usually considered reliable sources. However, it's unclear how much of this info made it over to the online bios. I've seen some discrepancies on dates and other details between the two. For anything not in its online reviews, it's better to use other sources. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed many AllMusic mistakes over the years. I try to use it solely for the professional reviews. As Moscow Connection points out, all RS make mistakes. There have been many times, for example, where one RS claims that album X is the artist's 11th album, another RS says it's the 10th, another RS says it's the 13th... Caro7200 (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen errors in AllMusic biographies. Especially chronological errors.
The question here is, where do they they take the birth dates from? They wouldn't just invent stuff like that, or would they? If there is a birth date entered, they surely got it from a source that they considered reliable. Any music magazine would do the same. (It happens rather often when different sources give different birth dates. I don't see evidence that AllMusic is less reliable in that regard than an average music-related resource.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the sidebars. The textual biographies are reliable as any other reliable source. Sidebars might not be--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@

From a search I did of it within Wikipedia, several album articles seem to use Spill Magazine as a rating. Seems to be of a reliable source, but we'll see what others think--

talk

) 01:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I've come across it a bit recently in album articles. They have a huge number of contributors – writers and photographers – and that list seems to be something of a mixed bag. First up, Aaron Badgley, is the real deal, I believe; I recognise him from Goldmine magazine (print version, back in the '00s) and he's written for AllMusic also.

Looking down the list (alphabetical by first name), there's mention under Andre Skinner that he's been writing for Spill "for over 12 years, dating back to the print days". So if it was a print magazine, I'd say that's encouraging. But clearly, some of those contributors don't cut it – perhaps we'd need to discern on a case-by-case basis. JG66 (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Because it 1) has reputable writers from other publications, and 2) has an editorial team, I will presume 3), it is accurate, reputable, and fact-checks. I say it's reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

These are strong enough arguments out of the gate. I'm willing to re-add it to the article where I moved it to an external link. I think it should be added as a reliable source and if necessary, add a caveat a la AllMusic or Sputnikmusic that says to be a little discerning or that certain parts of the site are good and others aren't, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Would this source by happymag.tv be considered a reliable source? – zmbro _(talk) 20:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I've seen this source added to several articles. Its "About" page includes "our editorial team is made up of equal parts active contributors in the arts community (from community radio, management and bands) through to young journalists and established writers."[6] However, only names are listed without any background info, so it is unknown what else or for whom they have written that might make them "established". Maybe this is one for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The author of that article, Luke Sunders, is not listed at https://happymag.tv/about/. Regardless what the decision about the site is at RSN, I would say that entry shouldn't be used unless an historical copy of the page shows that author there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

His Facebook page [7] states that he has been working at Happy Mag since last June, but also that he is doing a creative writing/journalism course at university... perhaps he is on a placement or internship at the magazine. Richard3120 (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion currently on-going about live performance lists which might be of interest to you at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Are_lists_of_performances_a_thing? → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I just came across Template:NCR, which was intended to be added to album and song articles that lack a reception section (No Critical Reception). It has existed since 2007 but doesn't seem to have been publicized much and using it only adds it to the hidden Category:Album and single articles that lack a critical reception section. No message is added to the article. It also seems to serve the same purpose as Category:Articles with album ratings that need to be turned into prose, which has over 12,000 articles, but at the very least those articles have to make use of the ratings template. I don't think the template is necessary (and I would gladly send it to TfD), but if others think it's something to be encouraged, I would recommend adding it to the Album Article Style Advice page because I don't think anybody really knows about it. It should also probably be moved to Template:No critical reception with "NCR" as the shortcut. @Esprit15d: What do you think? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I was wondering if MuuMuse is considered a reliable source. It is run solely by Bradley Stern, who has written for others reliable publications, such as Idolator, MTV, Queerty, V Magazine, Attitude and Interview Magazine. I consider he has enough experience in music journalism, but there is no consensus yet. Thank you, --Paparazzzi (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You should bring this up directly at

WP:RSN not here. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk

) - 12:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that’s not true. I mean, that’s an option, but this is where we generally discuss entries for

WP:NOTRSMUSIC. Sergecross73 msg me

12:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As long as it isn't for BLP statements, yes.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a blog by Bradley Stern. The About Us page says ME...I AM BRADLEY Stern. The Elusive Bloggeuse. Founded in 2007, MuuMuse is a pop music blog dedicated to music commentary, reviews, interviews, exclusives and extensive analysis of the artistry of Britney Spears. Although he has written for a few minor publications, the blog does not appear as the most neutral or professional source to me, especially for a FAC - the reason why Paparazzzi is asking. Cool Marc ✉ 17:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this concerns me too. If it’s just his own blog, then there’s the issue/limitations of

WP:SPS at the very least. Sergecross73 msg me

18:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

When Brad writes for MTV News, they have an editorial team and checking process. With MuuMuse, its self published so Brad can write what he likes - there's no editorial process. I'd say unless you're linking directly to a video he has posted any written prose shouldn't be considered fact from her personal blog (MuuMuse). → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 18:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, it’d be similar to how we handle writers like Anthony Fontano and

The Needle Drop. He’s generally not usable unless he’s occasionally contributing to other reliable sources, not his self published stuff. Sergecross73 msg me

20:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

So MuuMuse is a self-published blog. In that case,

Wikipedia:SPS states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Couldn't this apply for him, who has worked for several years for reliable publications and has enough expertise regarding pop music journalism? Regards, Paparazzzi (talk

) 02:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That is very subjective as his blog content hasn't been reproduced by reliable sources but he has written for them. There's a distinct difference. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

But is it relevant whether reliable sources have reproduced his blog content? All it says on this point at

reliable, independent publications." JG66 (talk

) 14:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with JG66. His work doesn't have to be reproduced, he needs to have done previous work in reliable sources. If that's the case, he's reliable as a self-published expert, with the BLP limitations that entails.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not pushing for it as RS, necessarily, I've got no experience with Bradley Stern/MuuMuse at all. I'm just pointing out that there doesn't seem to be a requirement that anyone's blog content should be picked up by other sources, only that the blogger is already sufficiently established in the relevant field. JG66 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s no hard requirement to be published by an RS to be used, it’s just a common way of drawing the line for SPS like this, both here and at other WikiProjects. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

So does that mean that MuuMuse can be used according to that point at

Wikipedia:SPS? Paparazzzi (talk

) 19:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, though if it’s largely a SPS blog, then we should probably take a closer look at the bloggers credentials to see how to apply his usability as a source. Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your responses! Now I know the source can be used. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Possibly not directly related to this WikiProject, but I thought I should let interested members of the project know about this post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, seeing as this WikiProject tends to get more traffic than WP:MU. Richard3120 (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear all, will you be so kind to leave a comment at Talk:Dua Lipa (album)#RfC - "New Love" and "New Rules" single descriptions to help achieve consensus regarding the descriptions of two of the album singles. Many thanks. Cool Marc ✉ 19:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I know how to create a Personnel section from AllMusic, but I'm less confident about extracting the Metadata from a source like Spotify, Tidal, or the Apple Store. Would someone be willing to add a Personnel section to the Drag Is Magic, which I'm hoping to nominate for Good article status soon? Also, which credits go in the infobox? Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Ditto Vagina (album). Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Another believer, Spotify only includes writers and producers. I've checked Tidal and there's no credits for Drag is Magic (see here). It's the same for Vagina (see here). Drag albums tend to only be released digitally and to cut down on costs, there's no reason to produce full credits - this costs money and takes time. As many drag stars record as independent artists, self release or work with small labels unfortunately its often impossible to source anything detailed. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 15:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Lil-unique1, Thank you. I've nominated both articles for Good status so I just wanted to make sure no further crediting was required via Personnel sections or the infobox. Your help/feedback are appreciated. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Over at Template_talk:Certification_Table_Entry#UK_Sales_vs._Shipments. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This artist's page is on my talk page. A new album,

Yeah, it's not looking great. The second source is an interview promoting her following album, and Canvas is only mentioned in passing. I would have expected reviews to maybe appear in the quality British newspapers (The Times, Daily Telegraph, The Guardian) but I can't see anything there. It didn't get reviewed in the now-defunct fRoots, so the only other likely sources are Songlines and the monthly music magazines like Q and Mojo. But none of these last three have online archives, so it may have to be redirected until print versions can be checked. Richard3120 (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

May be of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_30#Template:Promotional_singles. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add your comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Another RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What's the justification for using Robert Christgau--who is a person, not a publication--as a source for album ratings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.215.109 (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

He’s one of the biggest music critics in existence? (I’m personally not a fan, so don’t mistake this for a fanboy response or sometime. But it is what it is. He’s the Siskel and Ebert of music.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused by the premise of the question here: he's a reliable source. What does it matter if he's a person or a publication or a collective school of rock criticism or an angel? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not like he's only ever written for his own website/books – he started out at Creem during its early 1970s heyday, and then moved on to The Village Voice for many years. Like Serge, I'm not a great fan, but he has a proper background as a critic for highly regarded music publications. Richard3120 (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Justin, it’s hard to tell for sure, but based on experience, the IP probably got told that the great Youtuber “StinkyJohn6969420” with 100 subscribers got rejected on the grounds of

WP:SPS but somehow Christgau “gets a free pass”? Its a false equivalency argument I’ve had with people plenty of times in the past. Happens a lot in the video game content area too. Sergecross73 msg me

00:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sergecross73, Not sure where you're from but the American impeached acting president I'm sure can do something about that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps if he gets retweeted on Twitter by Mr President, then he’ll be an RS. Sigh. Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sergecross73, Sorry for being obscure with my dumb joke. What I meant was maybe the acting president has nothing better to do with his time than intervene in how an online platform self-regulates in order to promote "fairness". (I didn't sleep last nite, so I'm a little wonky. :/) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No no, I knew what you meant. I was trying to make a tangential reference to it myself. Sergecross73 msg me 01:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Have been surprised by how many editors dislike Christgau. He's always been among my favorites, although his short Honorable Mention reviews are often obnoxious and not particularly informative. Having flashbacks to a decade plus ago when Piero partisans would bring up Christgau to justify all the Scaruffi nonsense...Caro7200 (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Caro7200: I think that's exactly it... his full-length reviews for Creem and The Village Voice were fine, but the one-liners on his website often do little to explain the rating he gives a record. Richard3120 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

His mini-blurb type "reviews" sometimes get the facts wrong and should only be used for pure opinions like "their best album in the 90s" to be safe. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

What facts are supposedly wrong?

talk

) 06:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Didn't enjoy his memoir, either. Caro7200 (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Caro7200: Another editor Isento has been adding Christgau's reviews in articles and even got his articles in good article status, I think he knows about Christgau then everybody else. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I add them as well, always have. I like him a lot, aside from a portion of his HM reviews and his memoir. Christgau, Trouser Press, The Source, and Spin were the big four that introduced me to stuff in the '90s. Caro7200 (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I wrote an entire section explaining Christgau's rationale behind the grade format. This, and the idea of reducing an album to a single line, speaks for itself as to how he values said album. And in response to anyone who takes issue with the overall brevity of his reviews, I will quote David M. Handelman in The Harvard Crimson:

"He explains himself in a few sentences. There's none of the tortured delving into non existent souls. He trashes trash, and embraces fun, genius, and things between. I totally sympathize with the capsule summary format, and prefer it when writing. It's often ludicrous to spend any longer on an album, and how many people read beyond the good/bad label?"

The issue is in regards to instances when a band re-records the material from an earlier album for a brand new release. My belief is that such material constitutes a completely separate album and thus a completely new article should be created, rather than merely having that material added to the previous album's article. A perfect example would be the 1983 album Suicidal Tendencies, which the band re-recorded as a new album called Still Cyco After All These Years several years later. The article in question right now is a 2009 album entitled Mike Tramp & The Rock 'N' Roll Circuz; the songs from that album were re-recorded this year and issued as a brand new album called Second Time Around. Rather than adding all the material regarding the new album to the original album's article, should a new article be created instead? SolarFlash^Discussion 23:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Happy Families and Happy Families Too... fall into this category as well. I guess they are entirely separate albums, with separate release dates, separate critical reviews, and separate charting... Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you have to handle it like one does when deciding whether or not to split off a single/song article from an album article - it all comes down to the sourcing and whether or not there’s anything additional to be said. If it’s a radical reworking and receives lots of reviews noting a difference in content and quality, yes, split it. If it’s a 1:1 recreation and it’s just a bunch of journalists noting that over and over again, then definitely not, just create a subsection and a redirect to said subsection. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that's probably the best option in this instance. Just from a quick google search I'm pretty sure notability is going to be an issue with a standalone article. I went ahead and created a redirect to the relevant subsection of the original album's article. Hopefully that'll keep everyone happy. Cheers. SolarFlash^Discussion 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps if the new material is released under a completely different title then yes a new article makes sense. However, if it was just re-released with a new cover or called something like Album Name (2020) then it should just be a section. There are some distinct differences - we have the same issue with re-releases too. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's one where the article combines... Caro7200 (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

With P.O.D., they did an acoustic "covers" album of select songs from their previous recordings. SoCal Sessions is, in my opinion, a studio album, and not a compilation because the material is new and not collected (with one or two new songs). This is a slightly different than what is being discussed here, but I wanted to raise it as similar issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Has PopMatters removed their ratings from their reviews recently. I go to a review page on PopMatters and can't seem to find the rating on the page--Majash2020 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been puzzled by the fact that sometimes an album has a rating on an aggregator like Metacritic, but then you go to the actual review on PopMatters, and there's no rating there. It's also the case that sometimes an earlier archived version of an album review has a rating, but the current page for the review doesn't. Richard3120 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Majash2020, That's really annoying when websites remove ratings off their reviews, Entertainment Weekly and Fact have this similar problem too. My advice is to find an archive page with the ratings still on it, like this. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick update on this; oddly enough albums do actually still seem to be rated by the site, but the ratings aren't being displayed visually for some reason – an album's rating can be found by viewing the source code of its review page (the numerical rating is enclosed within the tag <div class="custom-field-article-rating">). Not sure what the protocol would be for citing something like this, however. Holiday56 (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

With Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, I'm thinking a separate article might be in order for the 50th Anniversary Edition box sets – major commercial success, the surviving band members participated in promotion, and it didn't get overlooked by the critics either. A spin-off would be consistent with The Layla Sessions: 20th Anniversary Edition, The Pet Sounds Sessions and possibly others. The Pepper article is already fit to burst ... but thought it might be an idea to check here: Is this what we're doing, or are those rare examples something that shouldn't be in place, and therefore shouldn't be furthered with another spin-off? JG66 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would say reissues should be covered in the original article, but if the coverage grows too large then definitely separate it. We did that with

OKNOTOK. Popcornfud (talk

) 14:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks – I knew I'd seen one or two more. Perhaps a U2 album, not sure. JG66 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur.

talk

) 00:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure WikiProject Musicians gets much traffic, so I am cross-posting this link here because the thread is regarding band names and will affect album and song articles... the issue is the capitalization or not of prepositions and articles in band names: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Capitalization of band names. Richard3120 (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Is Tom Hull (his work, site, whatever) a reliable source? If so, how should he be mentioned in text and in the album reviews box (have seen his name show up recently). I confess that I only know him from his work on Christgau's site. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caro7200 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Caro7200: what work site and reliable to which end? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for signing...I believe Tom Hull is primarily a jazz critic. I know his name from Robert Christgau's site; I think he does site maintenance. He also has his own site. He perhaps writes/wrote for Downbeat and The Penguin Jazz Guide, but I've seen his name used in album review boxes, like Christgau's is. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't have a strong opinion about it. Just wondering if editors think he is "known enough" to be referenced by name in the same manner that, for example, Robert Christgau is, especially in the album reviews box. Caro7200 (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

He didn't contribute to The Penguin Jazz Guide. I can't find any contributions to DownBeat in the last 10 years either, although he is listed as someone who is part of their annual critics' poll. The main barrier is that Hull doesn't have his own Wikipedia article, so it's difficult to claim that he should be given special status. But I'd happily remove Christgau's usually perfunctory 'reviews' from the album ratings box... EddieHugh (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I see, thanks, I should have maybe linked to this page. He's been published in many RS, but perhaps his work shouldn't be referenced just to his name. For example. Caro7200 (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

As explained by the paragraph redirected from

talk

) 19:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Another credential, in

talk

) 21:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)