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, 77, 78

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

Discussion at RSN

A music-related website, Rockpasta.com, is currently being discussed at RSN here. Feel free to comment on the source's reliability there. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How'd this one end up going? One to list at NOTRSMUSIC? Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I would say that adding it is a no-brainer yes, though for what it's worth, I did remove it from all of the articles it was being used on at that time. But I think it would be worth adding to potentially prevent further use, given that it's basically a more classic rock-centric version of the kind of stuff you'd see on Alternative Nation or other similar sites. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added it to the NOTRSMUSIC list. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I agree with your assessment too, for what it's worth. Sergecross73 msg me 02:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Uproxx??

(sockpuppetery) Graywalls (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider Uproxx to be a generally reliable source especially for music. Im surprised it isn't here at all or in the sources section. This0k (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was one ongoing issue regarding Uproxx being owned by Warner Music Group from 2018 until April this year. That conflict of interest makes use of Uproxx as a source a touch more difficult, especially with how many massively popular artists are signed to WMG labels which Uproxx was still reporting on (though always with a disclosure at the end of the article). I know there's been a bit of discussion regarding how to handle issues like that, and while I don't remember any solid conclusion I think they all tended toward avoiding using it for conflict-relevant articles. Whether it's reliable beyond that, I couldn't guarantee, but it always seemed decent to me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? You didn't present any actual argument in favor of its use. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find it to be a better than both Billboard and Rolling Stone which I know sounds crazy but those editors do their research and are heavily non-biased which is where I think both Billboard and Rolling Stone differ from it which is why I think it should be added. I've used Uproxx in multiple articles for a reason and it seems many think it is reliable they just are worried if it is associated with a COI so it will probably never be added anyway. This0k (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have of this claim? mftp dan ^oops 04:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

020120

Unsourced for 15 years. There is a Japanese version of this article that is sourced, so perhaps … they were big in Japan? Bearian (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metal.de

My addition of Metal.de to the list of reliable sources was reverted, and it was suggested that I discuss it here first. Metal.de is a long-standing (since 1996) German online metal music magazine. Per the imprint information, it's published by Versus Media, and has a professional staff under an editor-in-chief who is legally responsible for the content. The property was managed by a company that managed, among other properties, properties such as the German versions of Metal Hammer, Rolling Stone, and Michelin. There has been a re-brand or transfer since then, but the new company still manages many of the old properties, including Michelin. Thus, this resource seems to be a digital equivalent to traditional print media. I tried to confirm the claim on the wiki article of 400,000 regular pageviews, but that link is dead. I don't doubt the popularity, and the magazine also has its own music festivals, so it's certainly a significant presence in Germany. Is there any reason to presume that this source is unreliable?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to 3family6's post – it's been used as a source in the following books:

Searching "metal.de" on Google Books gave me a lot of junk results, so this is the best I could gather from there. MusicforthePeople (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are more convincing than others. The interview citations I don't think do much for establishing reliability, as interviews are essentially primary source statements from those interviewed. The exception would be if the editorial content from the reviewer or publisher is what is being cited. Which doesn't seem to be the case. For reference, those books are the first 10. The remaining 6 are perhaps more convincing, because they cite news or review articles, which are statements from the publication themselves. Of those, Gender, Macht und Recht lists but also a bunch of primary source citations to YouTube, so I don't think that's a clear case. Analyzing Black Metal cites Metal Archives as well as Metal.de, and Metal Archives is user-generated and thus not reliable for Wikipedia. Metal.de isn't user-generated, so that's a notch for reliability, but since that book also cites user-generated content (which is perfectly fine for a book to do, Wikipedia actually has really high standards - which is good!), it's still a bit of a question if it's actually helping determine a reputation for fact checking and accuracy for Metal.de. No fear of the dark I couldn't verify, so I'll AGF on that one.

Die besten Web-Seiten für Senioren 2017 is better. It's literally a book of best websites. The other two websites listed are Rock Hard, which is also a print source and is currently on the MUSICRS list per consensus, and Powermetal.de, which, though not listed as an RS, in my experience of the source and of usage by others here on Wikipedia is a reliable source per how reliable sources are defined. Thus, I think this particular book is helpful for determining if Metal.de is RS.

The Virgin Internet Music Guide I can only see a snippet of, but it's a specific entry discussing the website. I'll AGF that it speaks positively of the source. And Dancers to a Discordant System cites a news article from Metal.de for statements of fact, so that's a clear use by a reliable source for determining reliability.

--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JeffSpaceman, you recommended bringing this to the talk page. Was that simply procedural to ensure that my addition reflects consensus, or do you have concerns about the reliability of Metal.de?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such thing should not have been unilaterally declared reliable by you anyways. It's a very bold change that was rejected. It should deserve a RS/N discussion. Graywalls (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of discussion doesn't mean the considering it reliable is solely constrained to me (it's not - example). However, my addition to the list was unilateral. I agree with JeffSpaceman's reverting edit and request to discuss it, because that indeed was a bold edit to make.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apparently Geschichte brought this up for discussion 3 years ago. And there wasn't real discussion or result, then. Sergecross73, do have any thoughts regarding this, given the above from myself and MusicforthePeople?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comment left by User:Graywalls basically sums up my thoughts. Any source added to a list of reliable or unreliable sources should have at least minor discussion to support its classification as a source. There are sources on the WP:RSMUSIC and WP:NOTRSMUSIC lists that only have a single discussion here or at RSN listed, because there was enough consensus established in those single discussions to support what they would be classified as. I'm not particularly familiar with Metal.de, but I'd recommend that when you add sources, you have discussions about their viability to support what list they end up on. Just my advice. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. The reason I ask is because your edit was interpreted in a deletion discussion as challenging the reliability of this source. Whereas I had understood it as you and Graywalls explained above.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable - largely to the strength of 3family6's argument, thought the USEBYOTHERS, while I tend to put less weight on, doesn't hurt the situation either. It's a long running professional publication. I didn't so much object to its 2021 addition as much as I just wished for that editor to give a rationale for its inclusion, which they never did, and then it was simply dropped. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Blue (album) FAC

Hi all, I have nominated this article at FAC. Any and all feedback would be welcome. My hope is to get this promoted before Spiritbox releases their second album on March 7. Much appreciated, mftp dan ^oops 16:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

Proposed a merger of House in the Woods (album) into Low Roar a week ago. Only got one response from the former article's creator so far. Could use more eyes. Thanks in advance. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live 365 and Euphoriazine

sockpuppetery Graywalls (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though Live 365 has most definitely had to have been discussed here before as it is of course quote a well known website despite calling themselves a blog.

Another one I wanted to bring up though was Euphoria Magazine aka Euphoria. They claim to be a Magazine but are a blog as per when you copy it says Blog. To be fair

Euphoria Magazine has done interviews with well known celebrities such as Paris Hilton. See here I would like consensus on both of these. This0k (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like consensus on both of these. You'll need to provide more information about both sources first. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to Live 365 I don't find it to be that reliable in the slightest and all seem to be WP:RSSELF by a woman named Katheryn. I would also like to ask about Euphoriazine, a blog that calls themselves a magazine and has sufficient information and well written sources and also does interviews with celebrities such as Paris Hilton. This0k (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, you should at least provide links to both sources. Second, you should share information that is relevant to determining if they meet the criteria at WP:RS, such as any conflict of interest/fact-checking policies, the names of the publishers and their expertise, their reputation in the music industry and their use by other sources, etc. You should not expect others to do research for you. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at RSN

There is currently a discussion being held at WP:RSN about whether or not lambgoat.com ([1]) qualifies as a reliable source for information about living persons. Feel free to chime in with your thoughts here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at RSN

There is currently a discussion being held at WP:RSN about whether or not audaud.com ([2]) qualifies as a reliable source. Feel free to comment your thoughts here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Template:Album chart

I've been trying to use {{Album chart}} at So Medieval, but I'm having issues. The album charted on the UK Official Record Store Chart (link to the specific week), but I can't see that in the documentation anywhere, and the docs don't say how to specify a custom chart in manual mode. Using "UK" as the identifier in automatic mode links to ...artist/_/Blue Bendy instead of the actual page for the artist, ...artist/blue-bendy. I'd just do the table manually, but I honestly don't know how tables work in wikitext. Could I get some help formatting the template to get this to work? (Originally posted at WP:VPT but didn't get any replies, so I thought I'd try here) Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the problem is that the Official Record Store Chart isn't supported by the template. I'm not sure whether it would qualify per the guidelines at WP:CHARTS, but it doesn't appear anyone has asked about it there or on the template's talk page. I would suggest bringing it up at CHARTS' talk page if no one else responds here regarding its validity. For now, I don't think you can include it via the template, so you'd be better off putting it in prose. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response - I've brought it up at WP:CHARTS. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 12:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Until it's fixed, you can edit the table through the visual editor, which is infinitely easier than editing it via wikitext. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 11:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's real, actually - I tend to forget that the visual editor exists :P Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 12:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Music" / "Songs" sections

Hello, I hope you all are having a good day. At some point in the near future, I plan on fixing the article for The Black Parade, which includes adding a section about the articles songs/music itself, giving a bit of coverage to each song in the album. However, what stumps me and makes me much more hesitant to begin work is that I am not sure how to approach it. There appears to be two standards for "Music" sections in recognized content for albums: dedicating a paragraph to each song (present at articles such as Master of Puppets and Ride the Lightning), and going over the albums songs in only a few paragraphs, but in a generally more fluid manner (in articles such as American Idiot, 1989 (album)). I'm personally leaning more towards the "cover each song for a bit" (though I likely wouldn't give each song its own paragraph), but I would like feedback on which approach y'all think should be taken. Additional tips regarding writing these sections would be appreciated as well, as I've never really done anything like this before and this is a very important album. λ NegativeMP1 06:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selected Ambient Works 85–92 PR

I have opened a pre-FAC peer review for Selected Ambient Works 85–92 at Wikipedia:Peer review/Selected Ambient Works 85–92/archive2. Any comments are appreciated. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 12:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]