Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Anthony Fantano/The Needle Drop (probably) becoming reliable?

The Internet's busiest music nerd just did an entire overhaul of his website and is now looking for writers for breaking news related to music. This really doesn't mean much right now, but will this affect TND's reliability in the long run? — lunaeclipse ^(talk) 22:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The announcement mentions that there'll be no reviews or features, just news coverage, so this probably won't make much of a difference regarding Fantano's reviews. Those will probably be separate from this and unchanged, so everything that's been said about him previously still applies, and we have plenty of reliable publications covering music news so I wouldn't expect much need for it. On top of that, we don't know who's running the show or what writers will be involved (they could all end up being Fantano fans for all we know) so the potential for reliability is up in the air. I wouldn't get my hopes up too much about this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, still way too early, and another site that's going to rewrite press releases or report what other sites have reported ... got enough of those. We'll have to see if a reliably edited staff is actually going to "break news". Beyond his status at WP:RSPSOURCES, the last conversation about him on a music talk page just kind of trickled away, which is fine; I still have yet to see a case for his credentials as a "subject matter expert". Not to repeat myself, but citing a short blurb due to his (somewhat dwindling) popularity as an entertainer is, for now, still the only option. Caro7200 (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me as I'm not very smart, but did you mean to link to Melon? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Koavf, yes. That was a horrible attempt at making an inside joke. — lunaeclipse ^(talk) 00:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Have at it and enjoy, friend. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Someone once called him Melon (presumably because his bald head looks like one) and ever since his fans call him that. Eventually, he also started using this nickname. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 08:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for being patient with us out-of-step xennials. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Quick update: Applications have closed. As for Fantano's new staff, it seems ok. One of the staff members there has written for a handful of sources that are considered by Wikipedians to be of poor and/or questionable quality, which could raise some potential concerns. The editor in chief, however, is a writer at Beats Per Minute (reliable per this discussion), so I would expect some decent quality control going foward with the news section. Said editor's profile on the website can be found here. — lunaeclipse ⚧ ^(talk) 21:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Slightly related: shouldn't The Needle Drop be moved from "unreliable" to a (to be created?) "situational", according to WP:THENEEDLEDROP? Skyshiftertalk 21:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't currently keep a "situational" classification. Perhaps you're thinking of WP:VG/S? Sergecross73 msg me 22:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I know, that's what I meant by "to be created". Either way, I think it's unfair to consider it unreliable when it really isn't. I'd say even "reliable" is more fair, because it can be used, just depends on the context, and this could be added as a note in the "Discussions/Limitations" column. Skyshiftertalk 00:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The description is pretty clear, and there hasn't been any confusion on the matter. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd still say that "reliable" would be slightly more accurate, but you're right. Skyshiftertalk 01:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Opinions needed at MJ the Musical

Editors disagree about whether a Guardian review of MJ the Musical should be included in "Critical response" section of the MJ the Musical article. More voices would be appreciated. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We appear to be no closer to reaching consensus here, so if any other editors would like to contribute, please check in. Popcornfud (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Source discussion: Dazed

Over the next few days I plan to open a few threads about some really popular music magazines that are still not listed in WP:A/S. One such source is Dazed, which started as a print magazine in 1991. Many of its editors write to other reliable sources. I believe it is a clear case of a reliable source, but would like to discuss here before adding it to the list. Skyshiftertalk 01:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

From what I see, I'd say reliable. An editor-in-chief and an editorial director for the magazine have their work published in British Vogue and Vogue Italia in the past. lunaeclipse ^(talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added it as I believe it is fairly uncontroversially reliable. Skyshiftertalk 19:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, most print mags are. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Source discussion: The Forty-Five

According to their About page, The Forty-Five was "created by a collective of female-led music journalists, creatives and photographers" and founded by the former NME editor Charlotte Gunn (which has also written for sources such as Consequence, DIY, and The Line of Best Fit). I first encountered this source very recently through this list, which I've already incorporated into some articles after looking through some of the magazine author's credentials and considering it reliable. The list in question was written by Sophie Walker, which has also written for sources such as The Line of Best Fit, The Guardian, and DJ Mag. I've also looked through the credentials of some authors that are currently appearing on the main page. Jenessa Williams has written for sources such as The Guardian, NME, and Pitchfork; Tyler Damara Kelly for The Line of Best Fit and Flipboard; and Hannah Mylrea for NME, MusicTech, and Roling Stone UK.

Based on this, I believe it can be assessed as reliable. Opening this thread for discussion before adding it to WP:A/S. Skyshiftertalk 20:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Reliable per above. Sergecross73 msg me 21:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You make a plenty convincing case, and my experiences with the source have been good. I support its addition. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable. Staff is composed of people who have worked for other sources we consider credible here. lunaeclipse ^(talk) 13:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Added. Skyshiftertalk 04:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Source: Uproxx

Wanted to start a discussion about this source as I can't find anything about it and its music-related so I didn't want to take it to RSN. Would you guys think that Uproxx is a reliable source? I would say that it'd be useful to add to the source table as a case-by-case scenario. A few articles from the website have been from "Contributing" authors, sorta like WP:FORBESCON while some have sources written by staff editors of Uproxx. Would you guys consider this source to be situational? Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 06:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

FORBESCON is only an issue because it is known that there is little to no editorial oversight for those articles (see the same problem discussed at HUFFPOCON). If we had the same evidence in the case of Uproxx then it would be, but as far as I'm aware that just means they're freelancers and not staff writers. I am aware there were concerns regarding a conflict of interest as Uproxx was owned by Warner Music Group, but WMG sold them and other media properties earlier this year so that may no longer be an issue. They had also been consistent about disclosing their connection to their parent company over the years so I don't think it was a huge problem, or at least not compared to uDiscover Music. There is plenty of promise in their staff, as with just a quick perusal of their Muck Rack page, I see multiple staff writers/editors with work at numerous reliable publications (including one of my favorite writers, Steven Hyden). Aside from maybe the CoI concern, I don't see anything precluding them from being considered reliable. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Truth About Love (Pink album)#Requested move 25 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Truth About Love (Pink album)#Requested move 25 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment at MJ the Musical

Editors still disagree about whether a Guardian review of MJ the Musical should be included in the "Critical response" section of the MJ the Musical article. Any interested editors, please contribute to the Request for comment on the article talk page. Popcornfud (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Carousel (Marcia Griffiths album)

Never posted about an actual content/sourcing dispute here before, but this is getting close to edit warring. Please weigh in on this disagreement: In which year did Bunny Wailer write "Electric Boogie"? A newish editor recently changed all mentions of the date from 1976 to 1980, despite a majority of reliable sources pointing to 1976 (Bunny released/copyrighted a version in 1980). So far, User talk:HumbleWise has used original research, personal opinion, and sources that don't actually report what they're being used to report. Thanks for any help. Caro7200 (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an answer for this question. However, I do agree with you. Wikipedia operates under the "verifiability, not truth" principle. We report what reliable sources say, even if it seems they are wrong (like here). What HumbleWise did in this, this, and this edit to me looks like original research. They start using sources in later edits, so that's better. However, I read the part from the source used in this edit and to me it neither supports 1980 (it says he was working on the song in 1979) nor refutes 1976 (he could have started working on it in 1976 and was still working on it by 1979). Then this source contradicts the previous one.

I don't know what sources in general say regarding this, but if there is a disagreement among them, some of options are: list several dates, say "...was written in mid-late 1970s", or remove this phrase entirely. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 19:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

For those interested--not many, I assume--please weigh in on this ongoing edit war, in the article and on the talk page. I imagine that editors, including myself, are close to receiving blocks. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Recommendations for additions to this list

I've seen it floated before, but I feel it should be made official. Several sources have come up with concerns as to their reliability, especially within country music. I feel all of these sources are reputable enough:

• MusicRow -- has editorial oversight including Robert K. Oermann (came up and ultimately accepted in passed GA review for The Mavericks, was questioned in failed GA review of Jeannie Seely)
• Townsquare Media sites (The Boot, Taste of Country, etc.) -- seems to have editorial oversight and a stable team of writers, therefore should be considered reputable (was also questioned on the failed GA of Jeannie Seely, but passed muster in several other GA-class country music articles). This page credits Billy Dukes as the sites' main editor, and lists his journalism backgorund
• Country Universe -- has editorial oversight, including former Slant Magazine journalist Jonathan Keefe. Was accepted as an RS in GA-class articles such as Pam Tillis

tl;dr: if my old Roughstock reviews from 2009 are reliable, then so are all of these. What say you? @Caldorwards4: @Martin4647: @ChrisTofu11961:, @Sammi Brie:, @Ss112:, @Binksternet: @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: @Koavf:. Also pinging @David Fuchs: due to his involvement in the aforementioned Jeannie Seely GA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

These seem okay to me. As always, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for media sources. Sometimes even the reliable ones let loose a doozy. Binksternet (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. No objections based on what's presented here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't discount that the above-mentioned sources were unreliable in the case of Seely, just that they were not unquestionable passes and GA nominators should always be ready to justify source use; as it was, the nom had other significant issues so it never came to that being discussed. But as to their reliability in a broader sense, are there examples of clearly unimpeachable sources using or referencing their coverage? That means a lot more than "they've got a masthead and an editorial policy", which is really the bare minimum we should be looking for in any non-SP source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No objections either. They are all reputable sources. Oermann is a writer and a music historian. The Boot and Taste of Country all have editors. Their not blogs either which some Wikipedia editors seem to assume but they are not. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tupac Shakur

There is an RfC at the above page on how the article's lede should be written. Please contribute if you are interested. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Track number ranges

Quick question regarding number ranges: if you're noting duties in the personnel section and someone appeared on two tracks adjacent to one another, do you list them individually or connect them with an en dash? For example, if someone played guitar on tracks 4 and 5, do you list them as "4, 5" or "4–5"? I ask because I could have sworn the MOS specified to do it the second way, but now I can't find the guideline.—The Keymaster (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's usually just hyphens when it's cover a range. So, for example, to express tracks 3, 4, 5, and 6, you'd just write 3-6, but if it's just single or paired numbers, you don't use a hyphen. So if it was tracks 1, 2, 9, 10, you'd just write out 1, 2, 9, 10. That's only what I've observed over the years though, I can't cite any MOS for it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, but now I'm wondering if in your second example, it should be 1-2, 9-10, since some of those numbers are consecutive? As opposed to a group of tracks in which none of the numbers are consecutive (1,3,5,7 for example). Not suggesting an answer, just adding more questions, sorry! Violetstork (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Only if there are three or more consecutives numbers in a row, e.g. "1, 2" and "1–3". The point is that it elides track numbers, and there's nothing to be elided between 1 and 2. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks! Violetstork (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I really wish I could find the guideline buried somewhere here that suggested you should elide between two adjacent numbers with an en dash. Separating them with commas makes the most sense to me as well, and that was how I used to do it...until I ran across the aforementioned text that suggested you should use an en dash between them, at which point I changed. Now it appears I'll have to go back to the style I was using before, and I'll probably spend hours fixing the ones I did elide, because I'm OCD that way. I have a headache.— The Keymaster (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire)

I have nominated Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources for artist credits?

Am I correct in thinking that physical albums are the only source considered reliable for the purposes of crediting artists verifying particular credits on an album (for example, who is listed as a producer vs. a songwriter, etc.)? I understand that there have been many discussions about Discogs, and I'm not trying to challenge that, but does anyone have any alternatives that they use to cite artist credits? I'm kind of baffled that a more reliable database for this hasn't surfaced yet and I'm wondering if I'm missing something. I know some people have used the databases of particular record labels (I think UMG has one?) but I just wanted to poll others and see if they have strategies they could recommend as I work on cleaning up the American women record producers category. Thanks in advance! Violetstork (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

A music publication that provides that information would also be reliable. Some reviews will note songwriters, producers, etc. This site ($200 a year for the lowest subscription level) has data direct from dozens of album publishers. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

To verify writers, there's also this database from ASCAP. Here's an example search for Phoebe Bridgers. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

OMG, amazing, thank you so much!!! Violetstork (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you're asking, but I always use liner notes and cite them directly, as per WP:PERSONNEL. If there are additional credits that aren't in the liner notes, or credits that were amended or corrected some time after the initial release, and they are backed up by a reliable source, I'll add those as well, properly cited.— The Keymaster (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That's definitely relevant to my question-- when you say you use liner notes, you mean physical ones, right? and if so, do you limit yourself to records you own? or do you find them at record stores or at libraries or? (Just asking out of curiosity) Violetstork (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd say the majority of the time I use liner notes from physical media in my own collection. Sometimes I will work from a scanned image of the liner notes, if I can find it online, but you must cite the notes directly using the cite AV media notes template. In the case of Odelay, I had a relative send me images from their copy of the deluxe edition.— The Keymaster (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Except for the part where that citation isn't required at all because it is assumed that the liner notes are the source, as MOS:ALBUM makes clear about track listings and personnel sections. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to bring an article to GA or FA, it will need a citation. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, GA/FA is part of why I often put a citation for the liner notes in the personnel section. I also frequently find that an album's liner notes are incomplete or don't contain credits at all, and WP:PERSONNEL makes it clear that you should explicitly cite anything that's not in the liner notes. I will sometimes also do it if I'm cleaning up a lot of mistakes or omissions in a personnel section (which is a frequent problem, I find) as a sort of signal to future editors that the credits were verified. I've often found that editors will come into a personnel section and make changes that do not accurately reflect the liner notes, and leaving a ref seems to (usually) thwart that. In the case of Odelay, I did it because the deluxe edition credits differ dramatically from the original 1996 liner notes and are much more detailed and extensive.— The Keymaster (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I totally missed that part of the style advice guide. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'm mostly asking because I'm working on cleaning up articles in Category:American women record producers and sometimes I see disputes on talk pages about whether an artist is truly a "producer" or not, so I thought it might be helpful to verify credits for that purpose, as well as when credits are mentioned in prose, rather than in a personnel or track listing section, as in the case of this article, which seems to have far fewer citations than perhaps it should (among other issues). So my next question is: does the lack of citation requirement still hold true if I'm talking about prose rather than a personnel or track listing section? Or should prose that lists credits like that be removed, since it usually sounds kind of promotional? I'd appreciate any advice, and thanks for your patience as I'm still learning the ropes. :-) @QuietHere @Voorts Violetstork (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

For categorization, per WP:NONDEF, you should be looking for secondary, reliable sources that describe someone as a producer. Liner notes are a primary source. Notwithstanding MOS:ALBUM, I think it's always a good idea to cite the liner notes. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

God, it looks like I have a lot of documentation I've yet to read. Thanks for all the support and guidance-- I really appreciate it! Violetstork (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it took me years to learn the ropes here, and there's always more to learn. Don't be afraid to ask for help. And as for your last question, credits in prose definitely require sourcing, as voorts mentioned. The citation non-requirement QuietHere was referring to only applies to things like track listings and personnel sections, and only when it's a straightforward case. If you're editing an album/song page and including information beyond what the liner notes contain, you need to cite a source.— The Keymaster (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Many independent albums have liner notes on Bandcamp. I usually look on discogs. Once, I joined a Discord server for the artist and asked for a picture of the physical. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Source: Far Out

This is a source that I've come across many times while source searching for Wake Me Up When September Ends, and while reviewing the GAN for The United States of America (album) (which uses this source). They don't have an about page or a staff list on the site itself, but they do have a decently detailed editorial policy that basically supplements the about page. And the staff list can be supplemented by the sites LinkedIn page, where the four main editors all appear to have experience in other publications (whether or not those publications are high quality is a different story, though). However, they also appear to accept articles from writers that aren't part of these main four (ex. Tim Coffman is not listed on the LinkedIn page, but he also appears to have experience himself). I'm personally not sure whether or not this site is reliable, I'd like to hear what y'all think. λ NegativeMP1 07:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, the little I've seen from that website in the past almost seems on par with a content farm. They also have a YouTube channel (abandoned for nine months now), and I've found a good deal of their work is clickbaity and dubious. For example, they had a viral article and video where they boldly claimed Steely Dan's "Only a Fool Would Say That" was about John Lennon's "Imagine" without citing a shred of actual evidence to back that up. (I couldn't find one in my own research, and I'd never heard that claim in my decades of being a Beatle fanatic, either.) I'd say their editorial policy reads like word salad, especially considering the questionable content they've produced. Perusing the four-person staff on LinkedIn, Lee Thomas-Mason is the founder and Editor-in-Chief, but all of his experience appears to be in sports journalism and online betting. Looks like Karlien Engelen comes from a similar background. The only one who looks like he has some experience in the actual music industry is Ryan Kitching[1], and apparently all he does for the site is photo editing and design. Long story short, the whole operation rubs me the wrong way. I personally wouldn't use it as a source.— The Keymaster (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. I've stopped reading Far Out articles when they pop up on my newsfeed because it feels like they're always drawn-out clickbait articles. You know, stuff like "You won't believe this crazy reason Dave Grohl started up the Foo Fighters and its 10 paragraphs that amount to "Dave Grohl started the Foo Fighters because his prior band Nirvana broke up." I haven't observed outright falsehoods, but its generally not a good sign when websites have a churnalism problem like this... Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. And thank you for bringing my attention to the term "churnalism," which I was unfamiliar with.— The Keymaster (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Busted (2002 Busted album)#Requested move 20 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Busted (2002 Busted album)#Requested move 20 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aprilajune (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)