Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Requested move at Talk:See You Up There#Requested move 25 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:See You Up There#Requested move 25 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

"Received critical acclaim"

Hello everyone, it's been a while... various family issues meant I had to put all non-essential stuff on hold for most of 2023, including Wikipedia. Anyway, I've been thinking over a couple of things while I've been away, and one of them is the critical reception section in album articles. Many articles start this section with the sentence "The album received critical acclaim." But how useful is this statement? The truth of the matter is that the days when an album would get an absolute pasting (in the UK at least) in NME or Melody Maker are long gone, and it's tough nowadays to find a review for any album in any genre that is less than 6/10. The nature of journalism these days means that nobody wants to be over-critical of any record, resulting in bland reviews and high scores.

I had a look at the aggregate scores in Metacritic since 2020. From 2020 to 2023, there were a total of 1533 albums included. The number of albums that scored lower than the score needed for "general acclaim" is only 25, and only two scored lower than 50%. Most of us would consider an average rating of 70% or 7/10 to be a pretty solid rating, and 1413 albums achieved this, i.e. more than 92% of all the albums included on Metacritic so far this decade. So saying that an album received "critical acclaim" seems a pretty meaningless statement to me, as virtually all of them are acclaimed.

I can understand including the comment as part of the Metacritic rating, e.g. "The album has a rating of 67% on Metacritic, indicating 'general acclaim' on the website", because this is at least a verifiable statement. But is there any point in starting the section with such an OR statement, when it has almost no worth? And should we remove this opening statement from any album articles that include it? If an album is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it was probably notable enough to receive good album reviews. In fact, it would be far more notable to mention the poor ratings of the 25 albums that dipped below the 60% score, as they are far rarer, or the ones that score 80%+ and receive "universal acclaim" on Metacritic. Richard3120 (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! What you're talking about is a problem in the video game world too. Realistically, outside of the rare complete abomination, receptions tend to scale from "critical acclaim" to "positive" to "mixed", on a scale of 6/10 to 10/10. I think a lot of the problem is modern reviewers working on such a scale and forcing us to use it to because of how Wikipedia functions. I do remove unattributed claims of "acclaim", but Metacritic and other aggregators use the term pretty liberally, so it's not like it cuts it down all that much... Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, yeah, glad to hear from you, hope things are better. Yeah, Kelefa Sanneh mentioned this in Major Labels: A History of Popular Music in Seven Genres, that popular music is the "most positively" reviewed of the popular arts--partly because one has to go out of one's way to produce a technically poor-sounding album. "Lo-fi", like "rockabilly", for example, has been just an aesthetic choice for a while, not the result of finances or equipment. Caro7200 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I definitely see this as a problem. "critical acclaim" is a ubiquitous phrase on Wikipedia articles about the arts, and I see it as symptom of the generally poor standard of writing about critical reception on Wikipedia.

WP:FILM has a guideline on this, MOS:ACCLAIMED, that we could adopt: Describing a film with superlatives such as "critically acclaimed" or "box-office bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources. Be wary of news headlines, which are not reliable sources, that may contain exaggerated or sensationalized claims not supported by the body of the source. (There's more at the link.) Popcornfud (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I also think this is a problem. I agree that there needs to be some form of guideline similar to WP:FILM for how this is handled. I work with many older albums and I've conveniently had quite a lot of sources that explicitly say "X album received positive reviews on release" and "X album received mixed-to-positive reviews", or even "the most well-received album since Y album". Although Metacritic certainly helps for recent albums, I think there should be a standard set where an album received specific types of reviews should be sourced, especially "acclaimed" ones. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Zmbro: I hate the terms "mixed to positive" or "mixed to negative"... I know I'm being picky and it's probably the EFL teacher in me that's getting annoyed, but "mixed" means "both positive and negative" so it's tautological as far as I'm concerned... it should be "mostly positive" or "mostly negative" if one needs to lean one way or the other. And yes, I'm going to add some detail to Audio Vertigo which says that many critics called it the band's "best album in years", but I can literally source those quotes. Richard3120 (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"mixed to positive/negative" is definitely on my copyediting shitlist. It's not just syntactically confused, it's also weaselly, inevitably mostly used to flatter something that didn't get great reviews. The consensus has generally been against it when I've seen it discussed. There are a few discussions in the WP:FILM archives, I haven't checked other places. Popcornfud (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: "it's also weaselly, inevitably mostly used to flatter something that didn't get great reviews"... 100% agree with you. Richard3120 (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

One difference between albums and films is that there are a slew of albums and individual tracks released constantly (as I recall, some 120,000 songs are uploaded to various streaming services a day), whereas the effort and budget required to make even a simple film is orders of magnitude greater than an album, so review outlets will generally not bother with an album that is a 4/10 (why would they?), but if there are three films opening on a weekend, they will generally put forth the effort to tell readers if they are worth watching. (Additionally, it is pretty trivial to hear new music for free or at no additional cost if you have one of a number of streaming subscriptions, but going to the movies costs $20+.) So you will have a lot of films that actually have middling or lo scores, but it's pretty rare to have many albums that are reviewed broadly and are less than at least a 3/5 stars or something. Still, it is necessary to state in the lead what is in the rest of the article and not characterizing the reception would be inadequate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I usually just go with something like "generally positive/negative reviews" as an introductory/topic sentence, since there's usually not an RS that analyzes all of an album's reviews and determines whether they're positive or negative. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It just seems a bit pointless to me, because as I said, every single album gets "generally positive" reviews these days, so we're putting an identical introduction to every album article. Richard3120 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata equivalent project

Heads up that I've been meaning to make this for a while and finally did today: d:Wikidata:WikiProject Albums. Anyone who is interested in structured data about albums, please do join and help bring best practices and complete data to our sister project. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#"Release history" tables

There is a discussion on the talk page about "Release history" table with four options rather than "[Record] Labels": "Distributor", "Licensee", "Marketer", "Promoter". Any contributions would be helpful. 183.171.123.25 (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:When the Pawn...#Requested move 11 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:When the Pawn...#Requested move 11 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Dispute at Talk:Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran

There is a discussion at Talk:Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran that needs opinions regarding an edit war based on the singles in the infobox for the article. The discussion can be found at the article's talk page here. Thanks. HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:And Here She Is ... Ann-Margret#Requested move 7 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:And Here She Is ... Ann-Margret#Requested move 7 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Albums by recording location container cats

I've noticed that the subcategories of Category:Albums by recording location are inconsistently labeled as {{container cat}}s, e.g. Category:Live albums recorded in Australia and Category:Live albums recorded in Sydney both are while Category:Live albums recorded in Argentina and Category:Live albums recorded in Buenos Aires are not. Is there a reason for this discrepancy? Should they remain as such? Personally, I think album articles are already noticeably limited in the number of available categories they can be placed in compared to most other article types (most of the album articles I've created have 3-7), and it doesn't appear like it would hurt to open those up. I've been thinking recently about what additional album categories could be created because of this, and I think this could be a good place to start. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

An album recorded in a certain city is not defining and should be a container but at a certain venue or studio is defining and should contain articles directly. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

So you think the cats I mentioned that aren't labeled should be? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

100%. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Koavf on how the categorization is currently applied. However, I always found it odd that Category:Albums recorded at Abbey Road Studios was deleted at CfD as what could be considered one of the more defining studios at which an album could be recorded, yet the larger scheme continues. For example, I don't think an album being recorded at Capitol Studios or A&M Studios (or other corporate studio locations) are at all defining to the albums that were recorded there. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

About WP:FUTUREALBUM

This section of the guideline (Wikipedia:Notability (music) § Future material) was boldly rewritten in August 2023 by Doomsdayer520. He opened this discussion on this WikiProject's talk page after making the changes. I disagree with the change to the guideline as it places several unnecessary conditions (such as a tracklist and cover art) on top of the notability requirements for other albums, and is one of the very few guidelines to exceed the requirements of the general notability guideline. The only similar guideline is the one for unreleased films, which requires the project to have begun principal photography. This is not comparable to the burden currently placed on unreleased albums; just in the last two weeks, I've dealt with multiple articles on albums that had plentiful significant coverage in sources, singles released in promotion, and pre-orders open, but had to be kept in draftspace due to the lack of tracklists.

I propose to rewrite this section without the stringent additional requirements or revert to its previous version. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with reverting to the prior version as I think Doomsdayer's original point about having the policies separate is still a good one. However, I do agree that the requirements Doomsdayer laid forth are overly restrictive and also not how I've ever seen upcoming album articles handled. Calling an album non-notable just because it doesn't have released cover art yet makes no sense to me. Hell, there are multiple untitled album articles currently in Category:Upcoming albums (Paris Hilton, Nas/DJ Premier, Anuel AA and Ozuna, Megan Thee Stallion, and Playboi Carti) about which I have seen no objections, and given the amount of coverage they all have, I wouldn't object to them either. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Responses from the bold:

• I did not make up the requirements for cover art and a track list in 2023. Those had been sitting in the essay WP:HAMMER for at least 15 years, and even though that is an essay, it has often been cited in unreleased album AfDs.
• Before I modified the policy it mixed up multiple types of albums into one big rule -- those being near-future albums (the main point here), albums that had been started by the musician but never completed, and those that had been completed but never released. Those were all clumped into one single policy requirement called "unreleased albums" and the result was lots of misguided album AfDs. As proof of how rickety and inflexible the policy statement was, the 2008 Guns n' Roses album was still being used as an example for all of the above.
• The previous version of the policy jumbled up different aspects of WP:CRYSTAL and the aforementioned WP:HAMMER incoherently, which I endeavored to straighten out.
• I did something bold because the policy had been built by many people with bits and pieces over many years to the point of incoherence. I have no problem with anyone else doing something bold, as long as that bold move looks forward. Reverting to the version from before my update would simply restore errors that had been there for years and years because nobody else fixed them. Fix again if you like, but it's not 2008 anymore.
• Despite the wall of text that we have built so far, it appears that the only real objection above is the call for cover art before a near-future album is considered notable. Why not just change that? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I don't necessarily feel that you were wrong to rewrite the guideline, I simply disagree with some of the changes. I understand that most of them were constructive, which is why I recommended an amendment of the guideline before a revert. My objection is not just about the cover art, but to all of the additional requirements placed in this guideline. The notability of upcoming albums can be determined in exactly the same way as we do for any other album: checking for significant coverage in reliable sources. Whether or not the artist or record label has confirmed "critical information" is of no relevance to whether the subject deserves an encyclopedic article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

In that case it looks like the only major objection is with the phrase "This must include the title, cover image, release date..." Perhaps the answer is to change must to something like should or preferably as long as it's all in reliable sources. By the way, I believe "must" was in the guideline before I expanded it, but I probably added the italics. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking more towards the removal of the first paragraph in its entirety and replacing it with standard notability language similar to the general notability guideline or criterion 1 of § Recordings. As I mentioned earlier, whether or not the artist or label have confirmed any information is irrelevant when determining the subject's notability. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "critical information" is a nonviable term, so no big loss. But we still need something about what qualities make a near-future album a real thing and not just fan trivia. Also, go back to the history in August 2023, and you will find that my point then was that there were too many misguided deletion nominations for near-future albums for which there was info found in reliable sources. That was because of the previously vague policy allusions to WP:CRYSTAL and the like, and clarification was an improvement no matter how you sling it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is already covered by the requirement for reliable sources, as I think we can trust established publications not to publish vapid speculation of the kind that you'd see on a fan site. Self-published sources are already discounted from any notability considerations, and no argument of a blog or fan site demonstrating notability would be taken seriously at AfD. Also, the language used in the third paragraph ("consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation ... is a violation of Wikipedia's crystal ball rule") is fine by me; I don't intend to alter that part. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is probably the best summary of my thoughts as well. The first criteria of NALBUM is that the article meets GNG; why not let that be the standard? If we've got substantial coverage coming in from multiple reliable sources then why should anything else matter so much? And again, in my experience, this is how these articles have been handled consistently anyway. I've seen upcoming albums redirected/draftified for lack of coverage, but not for any other reason, and I can't imagine only saying "This has no announced tracklist/cover art" would go over that well in an AfD. A change in specific language might be helpful, but I still think it's focusing on the wrong thing. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Since a day has gone by and there seems to be a rough consensus for this change, I went ahead and made this edit to the section. I welcome any suggestions for copyediting or further clarification. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles assessment table

So now that we have taken out the "importance" parameter (which I agree with) from this table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Statistics, does anyone know if there is any way of modifying the table so that we only see the quality assessment in a single column, similar to that at WP:SONGS? It would be a lot better as the current table is a mess with all the red links. Richard3120 (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This is done by a bot and when we decided years ago to remove the importance feature, I made a request to change the bot's output and no one answered. :/ So as of

ow,nI think we're stuck. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)