Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 70

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Archive 75

Use of England, Scotland, etc. vs UK in concert articles

There is currently a discussion at the Project Concert talk page regarding the use of the countries of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) versus the UK in concert articles. Since lists and tables of concerts appear in some album articles, interested editors may add comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic

Per this AfD outcome, are we to not use their staff reviews anymore? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

No, that discussion was strictly about notability - whether or not it should have its own article. It has no bearing on if it should be used as a source. Sergecross73 msg me 18:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Cool. That's what I had a feeling it was about, but I wanted to make sure in case anyone goes around bulk-deleting reviews or something. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yup, good call, this question comes up a lot when websites get their article deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Template error

I've come across many of these type errors, not sure if the editor is posting this wrong or you project template needs to be adjusted, just wanted the project to be aware. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@FlightTime I don't think that's considered an error. The parameter was recently deprecated, just without any effort to remove it en masse because it doesn't really matter either way. Feel free to remove 'em as you see 'em, of course. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, see the edit summary, that's the error message I got. So you call it whatever you want, but it needs to be fixed. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that? No, that's also not an error. The importance parameter was deprecated after a vote so now it no longer exists, and that's just the site telling you that it no longer exists. That's standard for any deprecated parameter for any template, and it is my understanding that it is entirely ignorable in most cases unless you specifically want to fix things like that. I wouldn't worry about it so much. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The parameter has been removed from your expanded template, which means your editors are posting the template incorrectly. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for burdening the project, but I am asking, in your words, specifically want to fix things like that for someone to fix it. It's not up to others' to "fix it when you come across them" - FlightTime (open channel) 19:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No, but that's how it always works. You can go out of your way to make a project of removing them, but {{WikiProject Albums}} is in use on thousands of pages so it would be a massive undertaking. Makes it far easier to remove them as you come across them because otherwise you'd be sinking hours of editing time into something that doesn't actually matter because it's not an error that affects anything. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm just saying tell your members not to include that parameter when setting new pages, it's not rocket science. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think what is being said is this is Wikipedia, where Wiki can be defined as "a website that allows collaborative editing of its content and structure by its users." When you ask us to tell our members something, you are one of those members, as am I, as is QuietHere, plus several million others. You have just as much right to tell members not to include a parameter, or to fix an issue that you come across. There is no assigned staff that pursues fixes for a consistent usage throughout Wikipedia. You are the user. You found a problem. You have the agency to fix the problem as you come across it. You can write a bot to clean up the issue throughout Wikipedia. Go use your awesome power for good. Mburrell (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

After rereading your prior messages, I don't think you actually said that until now. That makes way more sense than what I thought you were going on about before. As for that, yeah, obviously that's wrong. The parameter having been removed from the page should make that obvious enough, and past that I don't know what else we should be doing about it. I haven't even seen it be an issue recently so I don't know that we need to do anything more than the same plan I described above. If you think it's such a huge issue then feel free to propose a greater solution, but I don't personally see the need. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Tell them yourself if you're so concerned about this. Its a minor that doesn't affect general readership, so it's hard to feel too stressed about this. Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Using colon or parentheses on title?

Karol G has an upcoming album, which is titled Mañana Será Bonito (Bichota Season). The problem is that Mañana Será Bonito is the name of her previous album, and her upcoming album is not a deluxe edition but a whole new album. Therefore, which title should be used: Mañana Será Bonito (Bichota Season) or Mañana Será Bonito: Bichota Season? Jvaspad (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

All the reliable sources covering the announcement use parentheses so you should go with that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 02:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Producer/writing credit dispute

There is a producer/writer credit dispute on The Miseducation of Lauryn Hills talk page. Please comment there. Pillowdelight (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:The_Miseducation_of_Lauryn_Hill#Producer/writing_credits ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hovertext for credits

Had a thought a while back of using {{hovertext}} for track numbers in credits. e.g. on Natural Disaster (album)#Personnel, Butch Walker's drum credits would change from "drums (1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10)" to "drums". I based this idea off of how Rate Your Music does it; hover over the gray-colored credits on this to see what I mean. Would that be an appropriate usage of the template, or would it be template overkill and I should just forget it? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem with {{hovertext}} is that it requires you to mouse over, so it doesn't work on mobile where you don't have a cursor (just checked to make sure, still doesn't work). RYM's custom coded version allows you to mouse over on desktop and tap on mobile. Maybe if there was a template that supported both, but I guess if it was easy to make someone would have done it by now. I agree with you, though, that those numbered lists look ugly, but we can't just hide information from the majority of readers. AstonishingTunesAdmirer (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Did forget about the issue with mobile, and that is definitely a good reason to scrap the idea entirely. Hopefully some day that changes. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Albums redirects listed for discussion

The redirects Template:Album, Template:ALBUM, and Template:Albums to the template Template:WikiProject Albums have been listed for discussion at redirects for discussion. I invite readers to comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7. SWinxy (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Unreleased and Future Albums Guidelines

There have been some AfDs recently in which the nominator seemingly assumed that an album is not notable until it is released, leading to some contentious arguments from those of us in the Albums community. See THIS and THIS as instructive examples. I suspect that this was caused by some confusion between WP:CRYSTAL and the "unreleased" guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (music), especially among editors who are not active in the Albums community. That latter policy was very brief; it lumped obscure early demos, future albums, and cancelled albums together; and it was still using the infamous Chinese Democracy (2008) as an example to explain all of them. I have updated and clarified this guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings, and expanded the former solitary section into two called "Unreleased" and "Future". I think I cleared up some sources of confusion, but everyone is welcome to adjust my prose if needed. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, those were some disappointing noms, so I think that's a good idea. About a year ago, I softened the wording of FUTUREALBUM (after getting consensus) because the prior wording basically made it sound like it was extremely rare for album articles to have articles prior to their release date, which, as an editor of the area for these last 10-15 years, is simply not reflected by reality. Kind of disappointing to see some editors still clinging to that older mentality (that was never really how we handled things anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Eurobeat Disney albums

Articles like Eurobeat Disney, Eurobeat Disney 3 (I don't know how many of these are in Wikipedia) lack any sources (Discogs link is a very weak and unreliable reference to be called a proper source). Quick online search for sources to complement these articles hasn't helped me either. Maybe these articles need to be deleted? Or else maybe someone has reliable sources to improve them? 178.121.5.171 (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me that as they are released on Walt Disney Records there should exist sources, because corporate label wouldn't possibly release anything without a massive PR in outlets to spread the word at first 178.121.5.171 (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@178.121.5.171 your best bet would probably be to start AfDs for them to draw attention to the issue. Other editors can do their own checks for sources and confirm whether you're right or not. The Discogs links do not support notability as it's a user-generated database where any release can have an entry. And not every release from a major label, even one in the Disney family, is definitely notable, especially these random comps which appear to have released in Japan only. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Since they were released exclusively in Japan, I would assume the reliable sources are in Japanese, and most likely in printed magazines/newspapers. Tried googling the album name in Japanese, but didn't see anything useful. And don't know the language to know where to look, unfortunately. AstonishingTunesAdmirer (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't the albums style guide part of the MoS?

We document consensus decisions about how to write album articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice, but it's technically only a Wikipedia essay, not a formal policy or guideline.

By comparison, the video game style guide and the film style guide are parts of the formal Wikipedia manual of style.

Why is this? Popcornfud (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I know WP:VG had to jump through a ton of hoops and bureaucracy to make the jump from "Wikiproject guidance" to "official MOS" back in the day. It could just be that no one's has bothered to push it through all that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As one of the main authors (but not the person who actually started it: I have claimed this before and I was wrong, sorry), we have discussed it before, but as SG mentions, it's a pain to get it properly incorporated and it just seemed like it wasn't worth the effort. Do you think there would be utility in going thru this process? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Right now anyone who doesn't like any of the style guide advice can dismiss it with the observation that "this isn't a guideline or policy". Popcornfud (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, sort of. It's still a pretty well-documented long-standing community consensus. Being MOS would certainly make it stronger though, yes. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Since we've discussed this before and the document is pretty thorough and stable, I feel like there is community consensus that it would be fine if it were a part of the MoS. I'll initiate the process. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I speak from experience here :D Popcornfud (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

...so do I.... Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Process initiatied

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#WP:ALBUM_would_like_our_style_advice_incorporated_into_the_proper_style_guide. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Deftones Self Titled Album

So, I am currently involved with a user who is under the impression that the Eponymous fourth album from Deftones was met with near universal critical praise. It was not. He frequently cites one major source (being Metacritic) as the reasoning for this statement, meanwhile I can dig up numerous credible reviews that either marginally negatively criticized the album, overall outweighing the positive responses.

• Allmusic
• Pitchfork
• The Guardian
• Spin Magazine
• Play Louder
• E! Online

PontiacAurora (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "near universal". Don't misrepresent me. I also don't see how you're saying the Spin and E! Online reviews are clearly negative - or positive. E!'s score suggests positive, even. The Guardian review is of a live performance (and is positive). dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

To avoid subjective judgement calls on this sort of thing, usually it's actually encouraged to use the descriptor of an accepted aggregator, albeit with the proper attribution. See WP:RSMUSIC#Aggregates for guidance on wording it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

As I look at the article right this minute, it says "generally positive reviews" which seems perfectly accurate and common for similar album articles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The whole reception of this article is a mess to begin with and needs torched and started from scratch. One of the entries which I removed was unreliable, The Guardian is another which is a live performance review and not the album itself, and the actual Pitchfork review is no longer available online and the above link is a collection of email responses to the original now-deleted review. I'm not sure that Spin calling the album "less an 11-song album than a single long-form mope" is necessarily making positive or negative commentary on the album rather than a simple observation. dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:W/2016Album/#Requested move 14 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:W/2016Album/#Requested move 14 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 22:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Ace of Base - Happy Nation/The Sign

I'm wondering if someone should combine these pages. The U.S. version of Happy Nation just has three bonus tracks in addition to the 12 on The Sign. I'm not familiar with any previous discussions of such instances, and I don't see anything on their respective Talk pages indicating that any consideration was given to just having one article. Is there something about this situation that would make combining them problematic? Danaphile (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Chron concern

In Los Angeles (Lol Tolhurst, Budgie, and Jacknife Lee album)'s infobox, I currently have a chronology for Lee's previous album Bamanan, but no others as neither Tolhurst nor Budgie have prior solo releases. I don't see a problem with it personally, but another user, Spadebru, disagreed and called it undue weight on one member of the trio, and even brought it up on my talk page. Figured since we disagree so strongly on the matter that a wider discussion would be useful. Thoughts?
Personally, as I said I don't see an issue with it. If either of the other two had prior solo releases then I would be including those as well, and if they ever release again in the future then those can be added at that time. I get why it looks a bit silly to have just the one and I wish it didn't, but I don't think looking silly is a reason to remove it. And if any notability concerns are had, I will note that the previous album's Album of the Year page includes four reviews, one year-end list placement, and one mid-year placement, all from reliable sources, so an article could be thrown together for that at any time (and probably should be; feel free to jump on that if I don't get to it first). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Mixtape albums by record label

Was considering making the above category, but noticed that the only extant subcategory which would apply is Category:Future Classic mixtapes which I made yesterday. I figure there's probably enough material for a lot more subcats to exist, but it appears they don't currently. Is there any reason behind that which would mean I shouldn't? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the lack of response, I'm just gonna start on this now. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I like it. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this considered a good chart?

I was going through Let Me Reintroduce Myselfs page and there’s an airplay chart in Italy under EarOne, which appears to be a radio station in Italy — I’m assuming. I don’t speak or read Italian. [1] — Is this considered a chart that should be included? Pillowdelight (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like it could possibly meet the same exception as the CBC chart mentioned in WP:SINGLEVENDOR, but I don't know if that means we should list it with other charts or not. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@QuietHere: I would vote for removing it. I’ve only ever noticed EarOne being sourced for radio releases in Italy, never for their chart. Looking at other songs that appear on their chart no other users have included them on their pages for charting from what I’ve looked into so far. Pillowdelight (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Change album title Willie Nelson ?

see Talk:Sings Kristofferson MistaPPPP (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Using Spotify as a source

Spotify is used as a source on the album article Froge.mp3 and song articles like "Words". I looked through all the discussions, MOS, and style guidelines and couldn’t find anything prohibiting it. I need to know for a DYK I’m reviewing. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't recall the wikilink/discussion location off the top of my head, but basically all retail listings/storefronts/streaming websites are generally frowned upon. I'll try to link to something more specific soon if someone else doesn't do it for me. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:VENDOR is relevant, I think. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, both. I have asked the nom to find another source. If any of you could take a look and recommend another source, that would be helpful. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Additional discussions on South Korean review/critic websites

Recently, documents related to Korean indie/rock music have been posted, but many people refer to the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources because they do not specify a reliable source for the album. However, that document is mainly focused on K-culture and K-pop, and many Korean indie/rock music is introduced in music magazines or critic websites rather than K-charts, so they often fail to check even though they have reliable sources.

Of course, I left a similar discussion in that document (Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources). But I thought it was right to add it here because what they mainly deal with is not only Korean music, but various forms of music, and I want to talk about whether it is appropriate to add them.

• IZM [2] - South Korean music online magazine
• weiv [3] - South Korean music magazine established in 1999
• Music Y (음악취향 Y) [4] - South Korean music magazine established in 2014
• Rhythmer [5] - South Korean Hip Hop music magazine
• Ton Plein (온음) [6] - South Korean music online magazine
• Visla magazine [7] - South Korean Music/Culture magazine

올해의수상자 (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on Sputnikmusic on RSN

Could someone explain the differences between User and Staff reviews at RSN? The 2017 discussion linked on the projects source list points towards the sites now deleted Wikipedia article, and I can't find anything on the difference on the website. See WP:RSN#Sputnikmusic.com. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The deleted article said this (though it was largely unsourced):

Sputnikmusic has four classes of reviewer identifiers to demarcate whether content should be considered professional or not.

• Staff Writers are the writers who contribute the professional-standard content, which includes featured articles in addition to reviews.
• Contributing Reviewers can contribute features, but are not eligible for inclusion by either Metacritic or Wikipedia, yet are acknowledged as being writers who generate content of a passable quality. There are currently 23 contributing reviewers.
• Emeritus is a status given to former staff writers who no longer contribute to the site. Reviews by these users are acknowledged as professional.
• Users include everybody who had not yet been promoted to any of the higher levels. Despite this, they can still contribute new reviews, artists, and albums to the database, edit data already present, and submit journals and lists.

Im not an expert on the site, but it does coincide with what I know off-hand. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Album certification clarification

Can anyone clarify when we find a source that has an albums sales but later down the road the album gets an updated cert what are we supposed to keep in the box? The sales or the updated cert? Most times I see the updated cert in the box due to the sales ref being "outdated". [8] referring to this edit — I had removed the sales ref from Billboard due to the updated cert being released 2 months after the article was published. What should be kept in the box? Any insight would be appreciated. Pillowdelight (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

*sigh* After you rudely edit warred with myself and others, and then immaturely (and ignorantly) barked at me here, another editor and I tried explaining to you how certifications, and sales work for the tables in album pages (even though we already did so in edit summaries). That still wasn't enough for you, so several of us painstakingly tried to explain to you how it works in this discussion. Several years later, I'll explain to you yet again; RIAA factors in copies of an album/single shipped out, as well as streaming numbers. Whatever their certification number is, we put in the column that says "certification" in the Certifications table. If we also have a reliable source that has the actual number of copies purely sold (as in, not streaming numbers, and/or copies simply shipped out to retailers) we also put those numbers in the column that says "certified units/sold". --Blastmaster11 (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You can sigh all you want. I am seeing more users remove the sales ref when an updated cert is released, users who have a lot more edits than you and who have been editing way longer than you. Pillowdelight (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Please, there's no need to be rude Blastermaster, this appears to be a good-faith question. A simple answer will do. I usually leave this sort of stuff to other editors, but upon first glance at least, I wouldn't have raised an eyebrow on someone using the RIAA website to update a certification table... Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Sergecross73: they love to bring up that discussion from 3 years ago. I am being honest, I’ve rarely ever seen an editor not remove a sales ref when an updated cert is released. Hence the reason why I’ve started doing it. There is no rule that states a sales ref needs to be kept even when an updated cert is released. If so, Blastmaster please show me. Regarding certification rules — I strongly believe there needs to be some sort of regulation explaining how it needs to be to avoid situations like this. Pillowdelight (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for coming off as "rude", but I'm seeing the same circumstance that took place years ago (linked above), that myself and others strenuously tried to explain to Pillowdelight - the same user who edit-warred, left insolent messages on my talk page (also linked above), and who argued pretty much every explanation that we provided in that discussion. So naturally, I wasn't exactly overjoyed to once again be dealing with this same user/situation. Also, I'd strongly argue that Pillow's childish anecdote above to uphold their argument "...users who have a lot more edits than you and who have been editing way longer than you", is extremely "rude". In regard to changing pure album sales numbers based solely off certification numbers, that was (once again) already discussed here in detail (if you actually read through the entire discussion). --Blastmaster11 (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You keep bringing up a 3 year old discussion from when I was new. I asked you to show me where it states we can/can’t remove an old sales ref when an updated cert is released. Just like in that discussion every single one of you couldn’t show me anything. Me pointing out that I’d rather listen/view how other users edit certifications by removing an old sales ref when an updated cert is released because they have a lot more edits and time on here than you is not rude at all, I’d rather follow them than your say so point. Sorry but it’s the truth. So I will still continue to remove a sales ref as long as an updated cert has been released afterwards. You’re the only one who’s having an issue with this, like I said before older users who have much more edits and time on here than you are doing it so leave me alone if I do it. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

(several exerpts from discussion): "RIAA and most certification providers before 2014 used shipped units from the record company, not over the counter sales for their certifications, because before downloads and streaming there was no way of counting every single sale of a record in shops. RIAA's certifications may go back to 1958, but for more than 50 years those certifications were based on audits of the record company's shipments, not shop sales". /// "RIAA has their numbers, which are their numbers, and Nielsen Soundscan's numbers are different, that is immaterial, they are their numbers. As long as each is sourced, we report the reported figures and don't prefer one over another". /// "Nielsen is the company that actually collects the numbers... RIAA have their methodolology, Nielsen have theirs, neither is "more correct" than the other". /// "Nielsen Soundscan is a company that is recognized for accurately reporting sales. If RIAA's numbers disagree with Soundscan numbers and both are referenced, it's not our job to justify the discrepancy. RIAA's are not more or less reliable than Soundscan's; even when they do not agree" /// "Almost all Wikipedia albums articles use sales not shipments when there's info about it" //// "When record companies distribute the albums to shops and the album flopped the CDs return to the label and they're destroyed by them, that's why shippments are almost insignificant, because they don't show us nothing about the real album performance". /// "everyone is trying to explain to you, RIAA certifies shipments not sales. Sometimes albums don't even reach near a certification level in sales but certify for shipments and streaming so it's unknown how many copies an album actually sold in pure sales just from RIAA. Nilsen Soundscan is the proper source to use for sales since they actually calculate pure album sales". /// "What shouldn't be difficult to understand is that we use RIAA for certifications but if we find a reliable source for the sales then we list those even if the album/song has a certification". --Blastmaster11 (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

"Several experts" — no guidelines exist at all. One of those users is blocked indefinitely. Like I said before, I’m just following what older users are doing. I wouldn’t be surprised if you notice they remove it and don’t say anything. It’s obvious at this point you love to harass me and to bring up a 3 year old discussion as your response each time I say something to you. So once again, I will continue to remove a sales ref as long as the cert has been updated AFTER the ref was published. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel "harassed" by my quoting notable points made in the most recent (and perhaps only?) discussion pertaining to this exact topic of RIAA's certification numbers not being based solely on pure album sales. Just as you can make the argument that you're following what other users do, I could make the argument that I'm following what was, at the very least, actually discussed here on Wikipedia. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

This discussion here obviously isn't yielding anything worthwhile with all of its clutter, so I've "re-started" a new one below with hopes of simply coming to some kind of a conclusion on this topic (with civility). --Blastmaster11 (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Consensus on album sales numbers in certification tables

The above back-and-forth exchanges clearly aren't amounting to anything productive, so let's see if we can come to a consensus on whether we can include sourced pure album sales numbers (when available) in certification tables on album pages. This topic was previously discussed three years ago here, but not officially confirmed. While we obviously put certification numbers in the "certification" column, RIAA has their way of getting those numbers (such as including the number of units shipped out to distributors, streaming numbers, and counting one sale of a double album as two units sold), while a database like Nielsen has their way of getting their numbers (by going solely on physical sales). I don't believe that one is better than the other, but I think it should be acceptable to also put a pure albums sold number in the separate "sales" column if a sales number is provided with a reliable source - even if this number isn't identical to RIAA's number. Blastmaster11 (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

As the original author of {{Certification Table Entry}}, I can affirm that Blastmaster11's interpretation aligns perfectly with the template's intended purpose. When a separate reliable source is available for pure sales, such as Nielsen, it can be incorporated using the |salesamount= parameter, with the |salesref= parameter serving as a reference. As always, it's crucial for editors to exercise their discretion when assessing the reliability of the source. Also, I typically remove outdated sales figures if a new certification has been issued, unless there are objections from other editors. Muhandes (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Muhandes, @Blastmaster11: your thoughts?? Pillowdelight (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Nielson doesn't track the sales through the artists websites or record labels, or from their concerts unless it's reported. So I would suggest using certification, even though it is not equal to sales or physical shipment anymore.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Everyone, thanks for your responses. I'm willing to generally go with whatever is most recent. However, I still believe that with double albums the sales numbers should reflect RIAA factoring one copy as two units shipped. An example being Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness didn't sell 10 million copies; but this is (rightfully) indicated in the sales column with 5,000,000. Also, with albums such as The Chronic that haven't been re-certified in ages, I think it's correct to obviously have RIAA's most recent certification in its own column, but to also have the most recent sales number in its own column with a source. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think adding another column is the solution. Tables should be minimalistic. The place for all additional information is the text body, not the table. You can use your own discretion and list all sales information in the text body. Muhandes (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Didn't you state above "When a separate reliable source is available for pure sales, such as Nielsen, it can be incorporated using the |salesamount= parameter, with the |salesref= parameter serving as a reference"?. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I never said anything about adding a column. Muhandes (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Neither did I. To reclarify; when I stated "... in its own column", I was referring specifically to both the certification column, and to the sales column, - that are already in the certification table (per {{Certification Table Entry}}). I didn't mean to imply that we should add more columns to the table, than what's already there. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

In that case, sorry for the misunderstanding. Muhandes (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Is Hits considered a reliable source?

An editor named Deeeogo is adding Hits as a source for album sales in articles recently [9] [10] [11]. Should websites like Hits should be considered reliable? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Most of the time when they publish their top 50 albums sales predictions for the upcoming week it’s usually wrong. If you were to match the top 50 from the Billboard 200 and Hits top 50 a lot of the albums are wrong according to what Billboard has them listed, most times I’ll see users add their sales and that as well is typically wrong. An example could be Hits is predicting an albums sales to be 50,000 units but Billboards states it sold 55,000 units. I would say anything regarding their sales is not reliable. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pillowdelight: According to this smaller discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_44 one user pointed that both Billboard and Hits use Nielsen it is just that is seems Hits use a bit more limited version so that is why their figures are different. So what they use is accurate but overall not that complete. In the 90s if one uses Nielsen figures those figures were too somewhat accurate but not totally complete because they did not cover all the sales like the ones through music clubs. Dhoffryn (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dhoffryn: Ohh gotcha, then that definitely explains why sales/units are a bit off. Pillowdelight (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible reliable source to add?

Presently, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources does not list Beats Per Minute (website). I have seen their reviews in several articles and aggregators like AnyDecentMusic? and Metacritic use their scores. Per a post to my talk by an IP directing me to this page about their editorial staff: https://beatsperminute.com/contact/ I am posting here to gauge if others think that BPM should be added to our approved list of reliable sources for album articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Potentially germane threads:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#New_Publications
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_65#Under_the_Radar (passing mention)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_65#No_Ripcord (passing mention)

―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason why not. Just from two seconds on their MuckRack page, I can see them publishing freelance critics who have also written for RSMUSIC-listed sources such as Exclaim!, PopMatters, The Line of Best Fit, and Loud and Quiet. My understanding is that's typically taken as a good sign, as are all the parts you mentioned. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, since we're already here, and since it coincidentally just came up in an edit that involved koavf, might I propose an analysis for Distorted Sound as well? I don't believe I've ever seen them included on ADM or Metacritic, but they do have a full editorial team, writers who have also contributed to Louder Sound (listed under Metal Hammer), Rock Sound, and Kerrang!, and they appear in 538 articles on this site already. Seems plenty fit to me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree and think both seem like reliable sources for reviews. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no objections to either. I believe I've used Distorted Sound in the past as a "last resort" to source things in the past, but that was more or less because it was a blog I wasn't that familar with. I've never had any problems or objections to its use in the past though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Beats Per Minute regularly publishes reviews by people who also have work in the above-mentioned pubs. There is excellent commentary being published there on a regular basis. Distorted Sound should get a thumbs-up as well. OkoYawa (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Soundtrack single

Can anyone confirm if I Wanna Be with You (Mandy Moore song) was also released as a single for the soundtrack Center Stage (2000 film)? @Breaktheicees: who added it even stated "The Aus maxi single specifically marks it as being from both, but I'm not sure where a ref for that would go" [12] I had removed it as they’re sourcing it from the "liner notes" clearly from Discogs [13] — after I removed it they reverted it claiming it’s in the cited liner notes [14] I immediately left them a message on their talk page even showing two sources [15] [16] that do not state anything about it being a single from the soundtrack. They then told me "It doesn't matter if it's also on discogs. The media itself is a valid source." and "Saying "taken from" a release typically means it is being promoted as a single from the release... this is very, very common." I can’t find any valid source that actually backs up this claim as a single from the soundtrack. Any insight would be appreciated. Pillowdelight (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, Discogs links themselves are not valid but the media is. Not sure why you keep trying to bring that up. That's like saying a book isn't valid as a source because it's in a library. I said I wasn't sure where a ref would go because I wasn't sure where it should be placed within the article. I have since added yet another source that hopefully makes this a bit easier – "...stunning follow-up from the upcoming motion picture Center Stage." ([17], p. 24) Breaktheicees (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that’s a better source that states that. Thank you for finding it. Pillowdelight (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Source for song writers

Hi, I'm trying to add a citation for who wrote a song ("Be My Forever" in List of songs recorded by Ed Sheeran). I see in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources that liner notes are one of the best sources to cite for songwriters. I don't have the liner notes, but I found the names of the songwriters in another wikipedia article which cites the liner notes. What is the best approach here? Trust the other wiki article? (It includes Ed Sheeran as one of the songwriters while some other sources don't.) Look for a different source? Leave it without a citation and wait for someone who has the liner notes to add it in? (Or more likely someone will link to apple music, which doesn't list the writers, or another site that's discouraged.) Bchillen (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the liner notes someone uploaded to Discogs don't list Ed Sheeran, only Christina Perri and Jamie Scott (text in bold). AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 09:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, writing credits originally added to the article didn't list Ed Sheeran ([18]). Someone added him later. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 09:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The ultimate source for who wrote a song, are the guys who hand out the songwriter royalties (not that this is perfect, either), i.e. ASCAP, BMI & others in the US, other organisations may have searchable databases. If you aren't listed you don't get paid. So for this song it is James Christopher Needle (I assume this is Sheeran's real name) and Christina Perri. ACE repertoire search. NB As per WP guidance, don't rely on user generated sites, like Discogs, or primary sources (album covers!). --Richhoncho (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That would be Jamie Scott. Album covers (front side of album packaging) usually don't contain this information. The information found on the back side of album packaging, inside, in booklets, etc is better known as liner notes. Liner notes is a recommended source for this information per WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, used throughout the project in featured articles. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 13:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know what liner notes are. Using them would be a direct contradiction to Primary sources, but as it generally is non-contentious, it wouldn't be a problem, but if there is a discrepancy? Richhoncho (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a misunderstanding of Primary sources, which clearly states "While secondary source material is most preferred, primary sources may also be used to report factual material provided the contributing editor states the fact in a manner that does not present an interpretation of the fact (original research) which is not itself explicitly contained in the primary source." Only secondary sources may used for interpretations of events, but for facts, primary sources are perfectly acceptable, although if you could find secondary sources, it would be preferred. Mburrell (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all for the input. I'll cite the ACE Repertory instead of liner notes so that future editors can verify more easily. I do wonder why there is no mention of that source in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources since I've seen it come up in multiple discussions. (I did check it before making this post but must have somehow missed the "writers" field.) Bchillen (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that while usually the ACE Repertory is good (and I believe those listed are the 'legal' songwriters), songwriting credits sourcing is tricky at times. When I was working on building up the Chinese Democracy article, I discovered the liner notes are missing about 40% of the credited songwriters in the repertory. Although I've also noticed songs listed to multiple people in a band (likely a case when credits or publishing for royalties were altered over the years) when the liner notes contradict that. So while I'm not 100% sold on the accuracy of liner notes as a source, they're probably the best available sources as long as there isn't contradicting information in other sources like the repertory.RF23 (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Apple Music blurbs

Would Apple Music album blurbs be considered a reliable source? They aren't credited to anyone but they are written by someone at or for AM, who presumable has some sort of editorial oversight. Many albums feature track-by-tracks with exclusive information from the artists themselves. Also while we're at the discussion, Apple Music playlists descriptions (like for the "essentials" playlists) and artist descriptions (some of which are actually credited to a writer) are part of this question too. RF23 (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you give a for-instance of when you would use this information? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Expanding an album's song information section with descriptions of songs from the blurb (specifically talking about the blurb, not the artist's own descriptions/interview part).RF23 (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean literally "In [article x], the only source for [claim y] is [source z]". Do you have one handy? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

https://music.apple.com/us/album/but-here-we-are/1682993466 is one, though I don't know how it shows up if you don't have Apple Music or iTunes on your device though. (I've got one or the other installed in every device at my disposal at the moment.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I can see it without an account. It shows the first sentence, and then you click on it to open a small window with the full text. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 13:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Perfect, that's how it shows up in the apps too, so everyone should be seeing roughly the same thing. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

They're generally just these little interviews or overviews you can read when you bring up an album on Apple Music or iTunes. They're mostly for modern/recent releases. It's good for sourcing writing/recording/lyrical theme type stuff. You know, like Dave Grohl would give his track by track notes on an album, he'd say he "wrote track one in 2022 in a hotel when he was sad Taylor Hawkins died" and you could apply that to the album as you see fit. Sergecross73 msg me 11:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, definitely reliable, but as a WP:PRIMARY sort of source. Sergecross73 msg me 11:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

South Korean music websites (IZM, Rhythmer, Visla Magazine)

When I write articles about Korean (Indian) albums, there is no source for Korean review sites. First of all, in the case of IZM, there's no doubt because it's already written in Wikimedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources, but since they're usually review sites for albums and music (their reviews focus on rock/indie music from all over the world, not just Korean music) I think it should be on the list here, too. And Rhythmer is also an official hip-hop critic site founded by proven hip-hop critic Kang Il-kwon.(The sources in the Rhythmer document can corroborate what I say.)

The last Visla Magazine also covers subculture (mainly music) around the world, not just about Korea, which can be seen as a Korean version of Consequence. (And they have a lot of indie music/album articles.) They manage the music article staffs as a company, and many Wikipedia articles already use the website's source. 올해의수상자 (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Remove unknown parameter artistid from album chart template

Hi all, I'd like to propose to remove the unknown parameter |artistid= from {{album chart}}, which is present on approximately 500 pages. This appears to have been pulled from {{single chart}} which supports the artistid parameter. I would be happy to clean this up using AWB, which should only take me a couple of hours. Please let me know if you agree if this worth doing. Thanks! Phuzion (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I recommend proposing this on the template's talk page as well (or link to this discussion): Template talk:Album chart. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Good idea, done! Phuzion (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Bestsellingalbums.org

I'm currently engaged in an edit war over at Aladdin Sane over a chart matter. IP user is currently citing bestsellingalbums.org. Is this reliable? Thanks. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It's listed as an unreliable source at WP:NOTRSMUSIC. Popcornfud (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't think some all-knowing, all-encompassing source for music sales exists. It's best to stick to each nation's official charts, and whatever sales info is disclosed through official channels instead. Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Music" in shortened record label names

Started a discussion at Talk:List of 2023 albums#Record labels with "Music" which could potentially involve wider Template:Infobox album usage, and I think would do well with a broad consensus. All comments are welcome, please and thank you. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Do It Anyway (album)#Requested move 3 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Do It Anyway (album)#Requested move 3 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Notability of Your Favourite London Sounds

Hopefully this is the place to discuss this. An article I recently started, Your Favourite London Sounds, was quickly tagged with the notability template. Personally, I feel the article more than meets WP:NOTABILITY. It is built largely around an array of secondary sources directly about the album - either features or reviews - from sources such as John L. Walters at The Guardian (fine per Perennial sources), Kenneth Goldsmith at the New York Press (I would imagine is fine), Los Angeles Times (fine per Perennial sources), an extended version from Times Colonist (again I imagine it's fine), an NPR feature (fine per Perennial sources) and several pages from a David Toop book. The article is then fleshed out with material from other sources. Could anyone the review the situation? Because I feel it meets notable coverage.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree--the tag was applied by a relatively new editor. I cast no aspersions, but album tags are often just kind of thrown in due to "I don't like it" reasons. Also, and while this doesn't apply to the above article, 20+ years in, the community seems unable to decide how to value shorter articles. It's appropriate to remove this tag, in my opinion. Caro7200 (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the notability, Caro7200. And yeah, I do see shorter articles scrutinised inconsistently. TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Personnel in singles/songs articles

I'm seeing some articles with personnel listed, and others without. Isn't the former redundant since they're already listed on the main album article? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily, if the album doesn't have by-track credits. Also, someone shouldn't have to be obliged to read another article for this information. Plus, it's not always the case that songs are on albums. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

B-class criteria

Hi; I was wondering if this project still finds B-class criteria useful? (the B1-B6 ratings in the project banner)?

If so, as a result of the global switch to project-independent quality assessments, we're planning to move these B-class criteria to the WikiProject banner shell so they're not duplicated across projects. The B-class criteria and their behaviour won't change, I'm just wondering if people here still actively use them. DFlhb (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to add that the two options are:

• to keep B-class criteria, and move them to the banner shell to reflect consensus for WP:PIQA
• to remove B-class criteria ratings from WikiProject banners, if people now consider them obsolete

The latter will happen, after further discussion, if the projects currently using B-class criteria signal that they lack interest in keeping it. DFlhb (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)