Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Albums and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WikiProject Albums was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 11 July 2011.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

MusicBrainz it a reliable source?

MusicBrainz it a reliable source? Houtyuhn (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not reliable, because it is written by its users, see the guideline at WP:USERGENERATED. MusicBrainz's homepage says it aims to be "the ultimate source of music information by allowing anyone to contribute and releasing the data under open licenses." GanzKnusper (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what other websites can replace them and prove the records released by other recording artists and the songs included in the records? Houtyuhn (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Discogs and MusicBrainz are no longer available, what credible websites can replace them? Houtyuhn (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a similar question a few days ago-- see if this conversation helps. To summarize, most folks were suggesting:

a reliable music publication that includes information about the record and its contents
Jaxsta ($200/year) or ASCAP/BMI
Physical liner notes, either in your possession or a scan/picture of them (cite with cite AV media notes)
If you're listing the information under track listing or personnel sections, a citation may not be needed, unless you want to bring the article up to GA or FA status. See MOS:ALBUM.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but WP:VENDOR also seems to suggest that you could use Spotify/Apple Music metadata to verify such things, although a more academic source would be preferred. ("inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times.") You might also check out WP:ALBUM/SOURCE for more info on reliable music sources. Violetstork (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KKBox, Spotify, ‎Apple Music is this okay? I have some doubts. Houtyuhn (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts, too, so I'd wait for a more experienced editor to weigh in. Violetstork (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although each has its own controversial incidents, at least KKBox only has one infringement incident, but it won’t affect its credibility too much, right? Houtyuhn (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Violetstork outlined is consistent with how I've done it and observed other experienced editors do it. Sergecross73 msg me 10:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts as well--they're purely commercial vendors. WP has never handled this well; I've seen longtime editors remove links to Sub Pop and Dischord Records info-filled pages due to "Buy Album" links--even when those are the original issuing labels--but Apple and Spotify (and Amazon) run rampant. And many editors have noted that Apple is often incorrect about original song lengths and release dates for older albums. Caro7200 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We've got WP:AFFILIATE discouraging it, but it's not well followed. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would not use services like Spotify or Apple Music to glean information, as I've certainly seen errors listed on those platforms. Same with YouTube Music, which is possibly the worst of the lot in that regard. The Keymaster (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are also necessary if you're listing information that isn't explicitly included in the liner notes. WP:PERSONNEL. The Keymaster (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afrique Victime

I made a peer review for the GA Afrique Victime, would like more comments to thouroughly improve the article and hopefully make the article a FA, many thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Runrig singles proposed merge discussions

There are several proposed merge discussions regarding Runrig singles that may be of interest to this WikiProject:

Draft for upcoming Lady Gaga album

For those who might be interested in helping out:

Draft:Upcoming Lady Gaga album

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hull - on the Web

There's been some recent discussion of the above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz. Curious what other editors think of Hull's lists of grades, such as the one for Miles Davis.[1] I love ratings and grades, have never understood the idea that they trivialize either art or criticism, and, most importantly, notice that RS books still write about them--recent books include Questlove's (The Source), James Kaplan's (DownBeat), and Will Hermes's (Christgau, Rolling Stone). Not sure about grades divorced of prose, though--even Strong, Larkin, AllMusic, have bio/prose entries attached to their ratings. Thoughts? There has been some recent removing/adding back of TH list grades, so best to ask. Or maybe I'm missing where TH wrote about all these albums elsewhere. Part of the issue may be that "subject matter expert" is kind of thrown around too often, but I'd feel the same way if Greil Marcus or Albert Murray's ghost started publishing long lists of grades without any associated text. He also has this on his site:

"In the Introduction to my ratings database, I wrote: I've been accumulating records since the mid-1970s, and have sporadically written about popular music since then. . . . The database evolved from simple lists just to keep track of stuff -- originally records that I had listened to, then it grew to include records that other people think are worth listening to. . . . The grades probably say more about me than about the music."

Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Grapejuice.net

Can this be used as a reliable source for music related matters? Thanks Koppite1 (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, it seems like I've read that editors don't find it reliable. I can't recall the discussion(s) though. Hopefully someone else can chime in with something more concrete. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Will be interested to hear other viewpoints on That Grapejuice. net

Koppite1 (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Our Music (album)#Requested move 12 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Our Music (album)#Requested move 12 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum number of ratings in a ratings template and displaying scores out of ten in stars

What is the policy with regards to these? I saw that in the article for Drukqs, the previous ratings template - comprising ten reviews, with numerical ratings out of ten presented as e.g. "7/10" rather than - had been changed so that more than ten ratings were present and those scores on a scale of 10 had been changed to stars (even when this clearly isn't helpful, i.e. Pitchfork's 5.5 can barely be parsed when presented as ). I'm under the impression that this is not preferred, and that ratings boxes should not exceed ten reviews. However my attempts to restore the older ratings box have been reverted twice by @Cambial Yellowing, who in their last edit summary says that "Twelve ratings is fine" (no mention of the star ratings which I think are a major eyesore when they're so small, which only happens when used to visualise a numerical system as large as ten). I don't wish to edit war, however I would appreciate some insight into this situation and whether the ratings box as it currently stands is suitable or not. Thank you. --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star vs numerical is uncontroversial - I've amended. What was the basis for your apparently abitrary choice of what to remove? The record received very polarised reviews, from e.g. best album of artist's career to irrelevant. Reflecting this spectrum is better achieved with a couple more than ten reviews. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't arbitrary, I just restored the version of the template that was there before, rather than picking and choosing what to remove myself. I think the varied responses to the record can come across in ten review scores just as they could in twelve.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The old selection of sources failed to reflect the spectrum of polarised ratings for the record. When ratings are polarised a slightly wider selection of ratings gives a better flavour of the variety of views. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambial Yellowing may not be aware of the existing consensus, but it is made clear here and here that there should be no more than 10 ratings in the template. If an editor wants to include more than 10 reviews, the rest should be in prose exclusively. If they feel the present ratings aren't reflective of the album's overall reception, then they can swap them out for ones that do, and if that's considered a controversial edit then it should be discussed on the article's talk page. And Template:Rating explicitly says "Please only use this template if the rating was originally expressed with the images used." QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template documentation indicates that more can be added in exceptional circumstances - the obvious exceptional circumstance being where there are widely polarised ratings for the record. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]